Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Proclaims US High Schools Obsolete
bryan sent us a story about Bill Gates' take on US High Schools. He says
'America's high schools are obsolete. By obsolete, I don't just mean that they're broken, flawed or underfunded, though a case could be made for every one of those points. By obsolete, I mean our high schools even when they're working as designed cannot teach all our students what they need to know today.'"
CmdrTaco went to high school and he still can't even edit Slashdot properly.
Hey for once Bill Gates and I actually agree. HS was fun and I did enjoy a select few classes but for the most part everything else was a waste of time generally designed to prepare students for the years ahead. Not a bad idea in theory, but for those who are already prepared and are actually interested in learning...HS life can be somewhat lacking.
In my opinion college was even worse. Here I am paying thousands of dollars per semester for the same "I'm a kid, beat on me until I can handle Real Life." stuff. I loaded up 18 credits every semester like an eager naive person only to discover 3 (1 class) of those 18 had any relevance whatsoever to my area of specialization. Once in a while another class would act as a supporting class, but more often than not the rest was just filler designed to keep me busy for a few hours every day. The result? After about 3 years of this I was sick of it...I could barely stomach a fourth. I was tired of seeing my money--earned by working--being spent on some idiot teaching an Economics class who readily admit his sole purpose at that university was to make our lives as difficult as possible and possibly actually teach something relevant to the course.
Looking back, I still feel it was a total waste of money. It made my life so miserable I didn't even have time to stop and enjoy the "college life" that many say makes it all worthwhile. It's my money, I should be able to spend it as I please...not to have someone tell me that I have to waste it on filler courses rather than something of actual use and interest to me.
In the end? I discovered I enjoyed the life of employment much more. All those years of having some teacher/professor telling me how hard life is and how clueless and naive all us students were. Truth be told, I learned most of what I use in the workplace either on the job or on my own. Not to mention I was no longer paying my boss to allow me the privilege to work--I was finally being paid to be there!
This critique doesnt happen to co-incide with the release of "Microsoft US high school 2005" does it?
As a recent former High School student, I concur. They spent so much time trying to prepare us to take a test, they didn't stop to think that maybe they should prepare us in general, and design a test that would -- test -- us. We seriously had a class everyday that was nothing but practice testing for the FCAT.
Teaching to educate the students became a lesser priority. Teaching what we needed to pass a test so the school could get a good grade, that is what happened -- and still occuring. Out of the day, at least two hours of it is being spent teaching students nothing but what is on a test. Every single day.
I feel like complaining to someone.
Proceed with Format (Y/N)? Y
Microsoft HighSchool 2006
Unfortunately, it's not just high schools, and not just U.S. We are now in the information age where knowledge is accessible through many more sources than the regular "classroom" setting. The world's education system has not changed much since the Middle Ages, whereas technology has.
That's just "broken". Something is obsolete when it is superseded by a superior alternative. I'd be very happy if current high schools were obsolete- it would mean the kids had somewhere else to go that would give them a better education. Sadly this is not the case, so "obsolete" is incorrect.
This is largely a group of Fabians out to preserve the social hierarchy. It's members include everyone from Steve Case to Jack Valenti. Anyway, I just thought you should know who that even if it is Bill advocating the ideas this time, he is really just the spokeman for a larger group.
i think he is referring to public high schools, which ARE quite horrible in america.
here in canada, we have a 1-tier school system (as well as health btw), all normal schools are public, and it works out quite well. note though: our taxes are very high compared to the US.
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
high schools obsolete? well, perhaps. i just sort of saw them as a waystation between middle school and college (always assuming you manage to pick a good one).
Try this version
He says 'Linux is obsolete. By obsolete, I don't just mean that it's broken, flawed or junk, though a case could be made for every one of those points. By obsolete, I mean Linux even when working as designed compare to windows today.'
It's all the same drivel with a few words edited. I suggest we stop posting crap by this guy because he's clearly talking out his arse all the time and only gets away with it because he rode the "in 2000 we'll be in flying cars" fad of his era and is now a rich bastard out of touch with the world he helped create.
I like muppets.
"He said high schools must be redesigned to prepare every student for college"
What about the kids who cannot afford to go to college. The funding for scholarships is just as important as preparation. As a high school student in Canada but it's not extremely different, I know that if kids know they don't have a chance of being able to afford college, they will not even try to go.
costofwar.com states that the money spent on the Iraq war could buy over 7.5 million college scholarships. However, if you have a room full of corporate execs who probably have contracts in Iraq, this is not a favourable opinion.
Now the magical school, that is where the action is. I can't figure out why people send their kids to public schools, because studies by Magical Schools for Action has proven that "Magical Schools that Solve All Probable and Forseeable Problems" get better test scores. Man, I just don't get people who haven't taken that next step into the future. It's there waiting for you, we just can't keep educating this kids like we're doing it now. Enroll your child in a Magical School that Solves All Probable and Forseeable Problems today. You'll be glad you did.
Brian Seppanen
Minister of Information and Propaganda
Area 54 The Secret Government Disco Labs Provo
Look at any math curriculum across the upper elementary and middle school grades - it's so much repetition it'll blow your mind. Kids learn almost nothing new in sixth or seventh grade unless they're in pre-algebra. This kind of thing has got to start a lot lower than high school if they're serious about it.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
He also thought that "Microsoft Bob" represented the future of computing, that 640KB of RAM should be enough for everyone, etc. The guy lucked into a fabulous opportunity and held onto it through lies, extortion, establishing a monopoly, and other non-competetive practices.
Yes, the public school system is broken. But I don't have any faith that Gates of all people will have the answer to repairing it.
Even though the density of Ph.D.'s in Taiwan is much high than the density in the USA, why is the USA a much better place in which to live than Taiwan?
Strangely, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Gates on this one. The High School experience has become that of "7 hours of MCAS-Prep" here in Massachusetts. Hell, they've dropped World History from the curriculum. Entirely. Gotta love the NCLB act, eh?
My Systems
This has been a generally accepted idea for many years. For example, Neil Postman's book "Teaching as a Subversive Activity" advanced the idea back in 1969. He declared that since schools were run by school boards that were responsible to the parents of the schooled kids, and not the kids, schools would always be designed to teach the same things the parents learned, which would by definition already be obsolete.
It's sort of like the old maxims about the military always preparing for the LAST war, and always being unprepared to fight using the methods the NEXT war will require.
I don't see any real solution to the problem. You really can only teach using the methods that presumably worked on the past generation, there's no proven track record for experimental techniques in teaching. I've taken courses in college by teachers developing new methods and the classes were just as likely to be a disaster as a success.
I TAed CS to college undergrads and once I was trying to teach C code for finding factorial to the class (most of them had already completed 75% credits).
There was a pindrop silence and finally one tard managed to ask "what is a factorial?"
This stuff is taught to Indian children in their 6th grade. And they are learning binary number system in 6th grade. And they are going to normal Govt maintained public schools.
HS education in US is a JOKE!
HS is 4 years. However, the educational value is much less than that. I think the average US HS curriculum can be mastered in one year by a bright teenager.
The bottom line is that after sixth grade, there should be three options:
1. Smart kids do a college prep track
2. Dumb kids do a vocational track
3. Troublemakers go to reform school
Gates is right-on.
The public school system is trying to be everything for everybody and has wound up being nothing for nobody. (I love the irony of that last sentence!)
It's not jsut broken -- it is based on a paradigm that is obsolete. No amount of "fixing" is going to work. We must rethink the entire enterprise.
If we continue to manufacture passive students ready for 19th century factory work and then complain about all the factory jobs going overseas, well we got what we asked for -- an outdated workforce.
The new age will be creativity and knowledge-based, and will require students to work in knowledge areas as adeptly as master bricklayers build stone walls.
The Titanic is going down -- we had better stop re-arranging the deck chairs and start building a new boat.
My daughter is in college and she's going to be getting $10 an hour for tutoring high school kids in a method called AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination). It includes 'Cornell note taking' and other techniques. She, and the other tutors, indignantly wanted to know why they had not been exposed to this when THEY were in high school. "I'd have probably gone to Harvard," she told me. That's just one obvious example of how our schools do things much the way they did a century ago, even though we've learned a lot about neuroscience since then. Math, especially, is badly taught here in most schools (rote rule-learning instead of letting kids beat their head against a problem and then giving them the shortcut, a superior approach used in many a foreign classroom). And then there's the funding mess, what with local property taxes and all. Do you seriously think wealthy elites all want the inner-city ragamuffins to get an equally good education and compete for jobs against their own offspring? Why do you suppose those punitive, distracting high-stakes tests are applied to public schools, but not to private/parochial schools nor homeschoolers? Jeepers, the schools here are a headache.
"The most blunt assessment came from Microsoft chief Bill Gates, who has put more than $700 million into reducing the size of high school classes through the foundation formed by him and his wife, Melinda. He said high schools must be redesigned to prepare every student for college"
Hmmm. So Bill, what of the say twenty percent of the population who just aren't going to be able to make the grades to get into college? The left hand side of the bell curve so to speak.
Used to be that those folks would train for a trade or even go to work for a manufacturer or similar employer where loyalty and hard work would make up for a lesser intelligence.
Whoops - those jobs have been shipped offshore.
What of the twenty percent of the population who might have good enough grades to get into a college, but who can't afford the tuition or the loans? Sure some folks can work two jobs and attend college full time, but that's not possible for every student in the country.
Bill, before offering half baked solutions to the "education problem" try to think of one that takes all of these people into consideration.
Three Squirrels
The fact is, they seem pretty willing to give up their own rights. Yes, education is more than math - but that doesn't mean we're doing a better job at any of the rest than we are at math.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
It is the fault of the students. Even my private school has had this problem. I have excelled in all my classes and received high honours. However, 85% of the students get poor grades that are not honourable. And it is all their fault. Their mindset "chemistry is boring, and math is too hard" is their own fault and they don't deserve an education if they don't even care about learning.
Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
Why should we listen to a college dropout talk about the importance of education?
I agree that it is important, but what makes a college dropout an authority on education?
Maybe I went to an incredibly good high school, but I found myself very well prepared (academically) for college. I'll admit that my High School was somewhat known for it's excellence in science ... but the key is it was a public school that anyone in the area could go to and anyone else could test into. We offered a program called International Baccalaureate which is light-years ahead of AP in terms of college preparation.
I agree that the majority of HS are not doing their job ... but there are still some that do. Having programs that are accessible for the motivated student and that challenge them is absolutely key to ensuring that students are able to succeed in college.
Several commenters have indicated that both High School and College were worthless because they were forced to endure non-technical classes that were outside their major fieldof study. Too freakin' bad! College (at least, a good college) is not supposed to be a trade school that teaches you how to be a Linux system admin - it's supposed to teach you a broad knowledge base that will help you to write, to read, to learn and to live. If you wanted to get a certificate as a sysadmin, there's non-college options for that. That being said, I'm just as annoyed by Gate's statement that everyone should be going to college after high school. Get real! Not everyone needs to, wants to, or has the ability to make it through a 4 year college. What the US needs it not necessarily more college graduates, but rather a better (and more widely accepted) technical school alternative. Then maybe the folks that are posting about hating college wouldn't have felt compelled to go there in the first place.
I can't more highly recommend this essay by Paul Graham as an explanation of why public schooling is so poor. Don't be misled by the title of the essay: that's just the perspective he takes on a more extensive problem.
Unfortunately, Gates doesn't see the real problems: he's right in that public schools don't tailor their education to what students actually need, but he doesn't for instance address the problem of overcredentialling, which is a result of the perception (and, unfortunately, the reality to a large extend) that a degree is necessary to be successful, combined with the fact that most colleges sell degrees, *not* educations. That's somewhat ironic, considering Gates himself has earned no degrees.
Additionally, follow Gates' suggestion to make high school universally more preparatory for college, and you'll see college become as pointless and as irrelevant to success as high school, because more people will go to college without any reason better than "I need a degree in order to get a good job," which will water down the meaning of a college degree as most of those people will spend an additional four years drinking and delaying adulthood instead of learning something useful through a more efficient means (e.g., apprenticeship) that will enable them to get a good job.
You can already see this process happening to a certain extent, as masters' degrees and professional certifications are required to get certain jobs simply so recruiters can cut down the number of resumes they need to sift through, despite the fact that the smartest ones aren't necessarily the most credentialled.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of the education racket: high school should be sufficient for 90% of people to get jobs, but it isn't; so most of these people go to college. Unfortunately, college doesn't prepare kids for jobs either, but instead provides a place for them to socialize while forcing them to take numerous courses unrelated to their eventual job in order to get a liberal arts degree that costs a lot but signifies absolutely nothing except, "I went to college and that other guy didn't, so give me the job instead of him."
I paid $130,000 to get my undergrad degree. I had a great time in college, but how much of that crap do I use today? I certainly didn't learn software engineering in college courses, despite being a computer science major: most of my software engineering skills were honed doing my own projects, in HS, college, grad school, and in my job. If it weren't for the education racket, I might have been able to save myself $130,000 and get a real paying job four or five years earlier. Think of the productivity that's being wasted.
[ home ]
From TFA:
The problem here is that, in my own experience, a lot of instructors in public schools today confuse a challenging course that induces critical thinking and development of analytical and practical skills with a course that throws large amounts of busywork at students. I attended 3 high schools, one was Punahou Academy, one was Carlisle High School, and one was Patch High School. The first, being an exclusive private school, also had the most challenging curriculum, and the most creative teachers who. The second had the most busywork, and the least creative teachers. The last had a fair blend of both busywork and critical thinking, but leaned towards the truly challenging side.
These three schools stood at disparate places on the funding scale. Punahou charges a high tuition for their students, and pays their teachers wonderfully, enough to attract even those who hold PhDs. Patch was second on the list, being funded by the Department of Defense for teaching overseas military kids. Their benies were good and their pay-scale was fairly high relative to States-side schools. Carlisle was an underfunded school, where there just wasn't enough money to attract enough teachers who could deal with turning around undermotivated kids.
It's been my experience that there's a high correlation between money available to finance schools and the quality of education. Money and availability of resources attracts motivated people. I'm not saying that the public school systems should be expected to pay out what Punahou does to attract bright teachers, but when garbage-men (sorry, "sanitation engineers") make more than teachers, it's not surprising that a lot of people that end up in public education are undermotivated.
There are lots of other factors that go into schools' quality that money can't solve, but increased money and resources is a good start. Bill apparently appreciates that approach, as well, with his donation of over $700M to the cause.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.
High school does teach us a number of important lessons, but not ones that are immediately apparent:
1) It exposes you to a wide variety of subject matter, so you can decide what you like or do not like. Sure, English Lit sucked. But since you've taken it, you know from personal experience that you'd rather take Science than Lit.
2) You learn to solve problems. Sure algebra is not relevant every day, but you learned how to analyze a problem. You apply those same learned skills to different problems every day.
3) You begin to learn to deal with people in social situations. Besides what your parents did or did not teach you, you learn friendship, loyalty, respect ( and it's opposites )
There's a lot of learning always going on, and sometimes the tests aren't always apparent.
Bill Gates may be fantastically rich, but he's also a college dropout. He's also hardly a self-made man: his family connections and the role they played in making him who he is today are well-documented elsewhere. While I applaud his philanthropy and sense of civic duty, I would like to see what makes him an expert on education. For what it's worth, I hated high school, was terribly bored, and became a good student only in college. I'm currently a PhD student and I teach undergraduate courses. It is true that many students come in lacking what I thought were basic skills (I'm in the humanities, so I'm talking about writing, history, foreign language, critical thinking, etc.) However, one must consider that a far greater percentage of US high school students _do_ go on to some post-secondary education than in most other countries (Canada being an exception). In most European countries, for example, students are tracked from secondary school on. Japanese students take rigorous exams just to get into a pre-college high school. Of course the tradeoff is that a college education costs far more in the US than just about anywhere else, but I think a big part of the reason that so many US university students come in unprepared is that we accept students who probably wouldn't get in if they were in another country. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Some of these students work hard and get a good education. The rest flunk out, but hopefully they've learned something along the way. My other big beef is with standardized test scores. What we really ought to be teaching students is logical, critical thinking, not rote memorization, which is really what standardized test scores measure. And we shouldn't be taking students out of the classroom to take these inane tests. Talk about a waste of classrom time! Education is to a large degree subjective, and you really can't easily quantify it the way these business types would like. Even if you could, comparisons with other nations are unfair, since most other countries test only the top (university-bound) students, whereas the US test all (or nearly all) students. Statistically, this would skew the results nastily.
If you're gunning for something like learning by rote, then yes, the library and Internet might be a good replacement for schools. That part, unfortunately, won't teach anyone to think for themselves (sadly, neither does the public and most of the other "High Schools"...). The elementary schools can't really teach more than the basics, because most people aren't quite ready for the needed teaching for reasoning things out.
So, what do you do? You try to fix the High School level teaching to emphasise less rote learning and more reasoning education. By this, I don't mean brainwashing the kids to think a certain way- hell, they're doing that right now in the public schools. I mean that they should be teaching them how to learn on their own (sorry, the basics alone won't get you there...) and to be able to develop knowlege without just memorizing things.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.
Education does not produce thoughtful and contemplative adults. You can force kids to read Shakespeare all you like, but most of them will still prefer Big Brother and Jerry Springer.
People have inborn natures. Not everyone has it in them to become a leader or a great thinker. Most people only need to be taught to do a job and conditioned to be decent to each other in their personal lives.
If you try to force higher development on people, you'll only annoy those incapable of it, and trip up those capable. Just give everyone space to do their thing. The normal people will have fun, get little jobs for spending money, and become comfortable with themselves. The exceptional people will pursue deeper understandings and develop uncommon abilities. All will live better lives given the freedom to become what is natural to them.
1. The US high school system is so obsessed with its democratic origins that it still strives to treat and educate every child the same. This doesn't work. Essentially, we have a system that imposes a K-12 college preperatory mindset on every student that comes through. By this, I mean that we aim to put every kid through Chemistry, Physics, four years of English, Pre-Calculus, etc. Contrast this approach with many foreign systems that break kids off at the 9th or 10th grade equivalent into the kids who want to be in hard-core academics and the kids who need real vocational training. Don't knock vocational training, either; a good auto mechanic or plumber makes more than I do teaching those "academic classes." This "all equal" mindset has placed us in a position where school districts and communities have essentially had to rig up an equivalent to the foreign system; honors and AP/IB classes that actually challenge and teach the "academic minded" ones, and regulars classes that are lax enough to allow the kids through who ordinarily wouldn't ever sit in a chemistry class.
Please don't take my comments up there to imply that everyone should be hard focused on only the courses needed for what they plan to "do." As an English teacher who pushed all the way through Calculus, non-trivial Biology, and some CS courses at the Uni, I appreciate the idea of learning for learning's sake. I also recognize that there are huge amounts of people out there who don't.
2) We've gotten "dumber." This is where the root of most of our problems begin. Go look at an application for any university. They have a section where they state their minimum SAT requirements for admission. For a University that has set their minimum requirement at 1100 (for example), there will be a fine print that reads, "or 1030 for tests prior to 1994." Why? Well, the ideal for the SAT is that the average score is 1000. Unfortunately, around the late 80's and early 90's, the scores started declining more than a normal deviation could account for. The average was closer to 920. So the SAT was made "easier." Somewhere between the 70's and the 90's, we all collectively lost an intelligence level that our prior generation had.
I see it all day long in the school system. Homework is a lesser priority; I can't even assign an out-of-class reading, because it won't get done and my lesson the next day will be worthless. Academic journals targetted at teachers have articles on how to create alternatives to homework that will actually get done, which is something I highly doubt they broached in the 70's. Standards have to be lowered; if I were to fail the number of kids who really need to fail, I'd be out of a job. And don't even get me started on the priority athletics and similar extracurriculars take over academics, or the paltry sum (and respect) given to educators in this country.
Take your normal standardized test complaint. Yes, they take away from class time. Yes, I use learning time to prep for these things. But they aren't really all that difficult, and it's hard to argue against any claim that they cover things you should already have discussed in the classroom (in most cases). I have no doubt that a 1970's era classroom, poor or no, could tackle an English or Math standardized exam with less preparation than an '05 classroom would need, and still score better. We really are "dumber" than the prior generation (I say "we" here because I am part of this group).
There are hundreds of theories on why this is the case. I'm not going to pretend that I can explain any of them. Parental involvement is lower with the severe proliferation of two-income households. The burgeoning American obsession with consumer debt both drives the previous issue and misleads students into thinking that a $25K/year job in their late 20's will allow them to have an Escalade and a nice house. The disrespect of education and school in general is an ingrained part of our culture. We are one of the few school systems worlwide t
But BG is right. High Schools (all public schools really, and not just in the US) were designed around the concept of a socialist industrial society (which thankfully never fully materialized in this country). It was a blatant attempt by wealthy industrialists at the turn of the century to remake American culture into something that would better benefit them. A lot of damage has been done to our culture as a direct result of this system of education.
I would go one step further than Bill Gates and say that when our school systems are functioning perfectly as designed, they actually prevent education rather than enable it. Any kid who learns anything during their time in a public school does so IN SPITE of the school system, not because of it.
I disagree however that all high schools should be preparing their students for college. College is not the only choice and college students are not the only people this country needs. I hate to break the cold hard reality to Gates et al that we do still need industry. We do still need service workers (lots of them since our culture and economy are practically built on the service industries).
I'd like to see a slight resurgence in vocational schooling as well as schools that better prepare students for further education. We need both of these things, and neither of these needs are being met by the current system.
I'd also completely disagree with those posters who think we should be careful when moving forward with these changes. I think we should be radical. I think we should be a little reckless. Let different states try different things. Let people experiment. Throw the old system out into the trash violently and let chaos reign for a short while. Let evolution decide which system works the best. We've been so conservative and frightened of change for so long now, that our students are struggling to learn anything. Taking things slow and being safe has gotten us into this mess.
It's time for the NEA to be shut out of the discussion. It's time for the current system to die, immediately. The cost of taking this slow and safe is much much higher than the cost of rapid change. Our kids are already stuck in a worthless system. Protecting it won't do them any good. Throw it out and be reckless for a while. The best ideas in education will rise out of the wild experiments, and things will settle down after a while as those ideas start to spread and take over.
It's time to take a risk, because not taking a risk will end up being the same as not doing anything at all.
...of the public education system.
Its purpose is to provide jobs for members of the National Education Association teachers' union so they can pay union dues to the NEA, so the NEA can in turn contribute to the campaigns of politicians who vote for higher pay for teachers who can then pay higher union dues to the NEA who can then contribute more to their pet politicions who...
This is the only explanation that makes sense when consider that the United States spends on average $9,000 per year per student (a quarter of a million dollars per year per classrom) and half of them can't even read when they graduate.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
I know this will sound like an advertisement. But if you are a parent, you MUST read some of Mel Levine's work. He's a pediatrician whose sole work is to encourage and teach children how to maximize their learning based on their aptitude. If I can explain the gist of his beliefs, he believes the school systems today are too reliant on performance based on standardized tests; parents are too hung up on "college prep" when they should be stuck on teaching their children "life prep;" and there is no such thing as "well-roundedness" (by packing a child's schedule with unneeded even detrimental extracurricular activities) and he labels it "mental obesity."
Each child is wired differently and it's the schools job to identify how the child is wired and to approach their teaching according to how the child learns, rather than sticking with the current monolithic system that essentially espouses the "one size fits all" model. As a parent it is imperative that you learn how your child learns and foster that. He believes that the current system is one of the reasons why there are so many children returning home from college, "living in the basement," with nary an idea of what to do with their lives or what steps to take next because all their lives, decisions were made for them.
One thing that he advocates quite vocally is that children should read more biographies. His reasoning is that if they are interested in a certain field, biographies give a glimpse of the "untold" aspects of the career that is often overlooked, like office politics and the social involvements required in certain careers.
His two most popular books:
A Mind at a Time
Ready or Not, Here Life Comes
You can also learn more about his organization All Kinds of Minds online.
Also, for a quick "intro" of his program, you can hear an online interview with him by Susan Page at the Diane Rehm Show. He talks about everything from the current school system to the increasing diagnoses of ADHD among children.
Linux at home
Quoted by rueger: 'The most blunt assessment came from Microsoft chief Bill Gates, who has put more than $700 million into reducing the size of high school classes through the foundation formed by him and his wife, Melinda. He said high schools must be redesigned to prepare every student for college....'
It's comforting (and simultaneously disheartening) to see that old Bill is talking out of the same fallacious American trap so many people spend their whole lives operating under. Namely, it's the 'college as end-sought' theory, where parents spend their whole lives pushing little Timmy to 'go to college' without (in many cases) considering what it MEANS to go to college and more importantly, that all colleges are not equal. Combine that with the fact that a substantial portion of graduates are majoring in 'business' (I got my info from Paul Fussell and will dig it up if you all really need it) and you end up with a country that regards college as some categorical end-all be-all without noting that Oral Roberts University is not providing the same education as the University of Pennsylvania. Trade schools are getting promoted to the level of 'universities' by the expedient method of having a name change and eventually the more nebulous and esoteric 'majors' of classics, history and physics will keep being replaced by generations of business and 'administration' majors. So what kind of college does Bill want to prepare children for? Saying 'college' doesn't mean a whole lot.
High schools are not obsolete. They're not efficient or full of advanced learning, but every student I've known who wanted either of those things found a way to get it elsewhere (other programs or simply with the weight of their own interest.) People work up to the level of their interest, kids no different than adults. Most of them learn how to run in a crowd figure out what other people think, get places on time (theoretically), do what they need to get by, and they keep doing it for the rest of their lives. I think it should be about more than that, but for that you'd have to change not only school, but the character of students.
'Sparrow.'
I think what he (Gates) suggested is: "The richest man of today dropped out of college 20 years ago because he thought college sucked. Kids today must be better, they should drop out of high-school for their best success".
Hi,
I'm rather troubled by that attitude here on Slashdot - there seem to be many many people who view a degree as pointless unless it fast tracks you to a job. There seem to be many people who view High School and University as solely vocational training, and judge the success or failure of those institutions solely by how successfuly they tain you to do a job.
When you're eighteen, if you are at all serious about living your own life, you need vocational training. Learning of learning's sake is great, but you won't have the spare time to learn in the rest of your life if you're struggling to make ends meet.
Universities used to be learning for learning sake when they were mostly populated by the children of the rich and rich, who did not expect to have to work for a living.
Bye,
Ori
-- Support a free market in the field of government
I was never a good student. I hated school up until college. During junior high I would not to assignments on a regular basis, I was a standard rebel. I graduated junior high with a 68 average.
High school came along and it was more of the same. I failed chemistry, two math classes, four english classes, I was a wreck. I didn't even plan on going to college because the plan was that I would take over my fathers computer business after high school. I Didn't take the PSAT, I didn't take the SAT, and it was my senior year.
I found out about some local colleges that didn't require SAT scores for admission. I looked at some local technical schools. I then found out about the SUNY technical school chain, which opened my eyes. I could go away to an upstate college that didn't require SATs or anything. (I managed to get accepted based on my resume and references, not my high school transcript)
My senior year I worked quite alot to try and get my grade up. My average up until then was 74. My average in my senior year was 98. Even though I failed seven classes and never went to summer school I still graduated on time and I had a reduced schedule in my last year as well. Somehow in my last year I had three classes, I was back home by 10am every day.
I graduated college with a 3.5. I don't attribute my success in college to anything I ever learned in high school. High school was a complete waste for me. I could have skipped high school completely and dropped out as a freshman, got a GED and went off to college and probably would still be doing what I'm doing right now (which is owning/running a highly successful business)
The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
[Bill Gates] By obsolete, I mean our high schools _ even when they're working as designed _ cannot teach all our students what they need to know today.
High schools are just a place where students spend many hours with teachers, have their homework and independent study supervised and reviewed, and get evaluated. That's not "obsolete", it simply is the way education works. How you fill those hours, and with what material, is what decides what people eventually know and the skills they get.
The fact that you can't teach students "what they need to know" has nothing to do with the format, it has to do with the amount of knowledge and the limited amount of time. That's why good schools emphasize preparing students for life-long learning, rather than trying to cram every bit of information into their students' heads.
Curriculums need to be redesigned, class sizes reduced, and teachers need to get paid better. But those are incremental improvements, they don't change the fact that it is a good idea to have students go to a school every day and interact with each other and teachers in a structured and planned format.
Gates's attitude towards high school is the same as towards Windows and complex systems in general: make uninformed pronouncements and rush a half-baked solution out into the real world. Twenty years later, after patching up all the problems, he ends up with something that is more or less like the thing he didn't understand in the first place.
Bill: please stop trying to design complex systems or mess with things you don't understand. It worked badly enough for Windows; let's not repeat those mistakes with things that really matter, like education.
I guess that depends on what you think the goal of an education system should be. Is it about more than turning everyone into a productive worker? I think so.
I live in the UK, so my education was fairly general in secondary school (aged 11-16), more specialised in the sixth form (16-18) and then entirely specialised at university (18-21 in my case).
During the secondary stage, I studied not only the fields of maths and science in which I'd later choose to specialise, but also history, English, modern languages, Latin (actually one of the most useful classes I took, notwithstanding the subject matter being "a little outdated"), art, craft, music, and more. This gave me a level of general background knowledge about the world, and an appreciation of what my peers were studying later on. I've found speaking several languages to at least a basic conversational level useful on any number of occasions since, so it's hardly redundant knowledge, either.
During the sixth form, I started focussing on maths, physics and chemistry. This level is the hardest to categorise in the UK; much of the material is beyond what an everyday person would need to know of, say, maths, and the focus is more on preparation for studying a related degree than anything else. It's interesting in its own right as well, of course, even if I never use the knowledge of chemistry I gained there in a job.
Once I got to university, I specialised in maths, and later CS. This was obviously very academic, yet is directly relevant to my chosen profession. Even then, though, it's important to separate this academic training from vocational training. A university course shouldn't be teaching specific tools and today's buzzword techniques, it should be teaching (a) the general knowledge needed to appreciate those tools and techniques, and (b) how to study independently, so you can learn the details of specific areas by yourself later.
It's often said around here that a good programmer can learn a new programming language in a few days, and there's at least an element of truth in that. More importantly, in ten years' time, someone with a good background in the theory and the drive and ability to study independently will still be keeping up with new tools and new buzzwords, while the Java McDegree holders will be wondering what this new language is for, and waiting to be spoon fed over-priced training materials by the commercial entities behind it.
Given what the IT industry has been doing to CS courses in recent years, essentially reducing them to vocational qualifications in buzzword subjects, they are clearly interested in propagating the use of newbie programmers at cheap rates for a few years, then trading them in (firing them) when they get too expense and hiring more cheap newbies instead. From a business perspective, this makes for a pretty good "software construction line", but you're losing the essential higher level of quality, both by neglecting proper training and by giving up your more experienced assets. Ultimately, that sort of behaviour leads to inefficient development processes (one skilled and experienced developer can easily be more productive than three newbies who each cost a quarter as much) and loss of quality (witness the declining performance and security of many modern software projects for obvious examples).
So thanks Bill, but I'd rather you didn't try to convert the rest of secondary education into vocational training from age 10. The education system is there to develop people as human beings and cultivate their skills and interests. There will be plenty of time to learn job skills on the job; save the education system for more important things.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Are different. I've seen it through all my friends, and most people who are +/- 5 years of my age (22). The fact is, we love learning. But we love learning about different things, things we like, stupid things.. Sometimes I sit around and read about something stupid (N. Korea one day) for a solid 8 hours for no reason at all. University's environment, and i hear this over and over, is just stifling to creativity. You have to do what they say, you have to do a crapload of work in a very specific area (your major), and you just don't have time to sit in a library or on the internet and learn about random things.
So why do we rush through uni just for a degree? To get a decent paying job that gives us enough free time to do what we want. That's why university sucks, that's why we hate it but need it, that's why everyone bad mouths it. I realize i made some generalizations, so forgive me, i'm just going by what i've seen.
I couldn't agree more! My wife is a HS english teacher, and even she says the system needs a complete redesign. We are not talking about a refactoring here, but a complete change. We do not give kids the credit and challenges they deserve. The big obstacles are, however, culture, parents, and social economic issues. If mom and dad don't value an education, the kids wont either. If we don't expect more of our kids, they wont expect more of themselves. Additionally, teaching methods are very outdated. There hasn't been significant change and improvement in teaching methods for 50 years. It is the same "lather, rinse, repeat" system. We teach kids to memorize, not learn. We must teach kids how to learn, not be taught.
My
Bill, before offering half baked solutions to the "education problem" try to think of one that takes all of these people into consideration.
But you can't have one school that works for everyone. You'd have to have two different kinds of high schools - a vocational one and a prep school. Other countries do this all the time, maybe the U.S. should give it a try.
I lurned lots in hi skuwl
Microsoft today announced that it is beginning development on a new suite of educational applications to be known as MSHighSchool 2.0.
I am an american but grew up in Europe. The educational system I was in is (or was at least) very specialized.
Despite a number of flaws, it worked very well, because the people who wanted to study hard were tracked into challenging, competitive/selective, and demanding curicula. We had mostly technical classes (lots of math, physics, chemistry, engineering), but also some foreign languages, history, geography. litterature.
The most important aspect of my section was that everyone took it vey seriously (students, professors), and while we had fun too, we worked really hard. I guess the main point is that because it was competitive/selective, we *wanted* to be there, those that didn't... left. Having gone on to get a PhD in Physics and an MS in CS (uiuc.edu), I can still honestly say that I worked harder in HS than at any other time in my life... and loved it. We viewed ourselves as professionals and for the most part enjoyed the experience (math/science really can be lots of fun!).
This is probably not for everyone. Some people, for a variety of reasons, are uninterested (or unable) to pursue that kind of education (by which I mean serious, intense and academic, not only scientific), which is fine. Those people should be provided useful ways to pursue some other kind of education, be it a "less intense/focused" track or a "tradesman" track. We need poets and airplane mechanics too. Those are no less valid choices or careers.
My best friend was one such person who, while not in the least bit dumb, was not interested in lots of math/physics. He chose to go into a metallurgy track, and came out at 18 being a highly-skilled metallurgist/machinist. His was hardly a wasted HS experience, quite the opposite. He knew things about metal and could do things with it that were quite amazing. He knew substantially more about metals than I did as a "science/engineering" student.
If I recall correctly, in both the US and there, about 50% of students actually graduate with an "academic" degree. In the US though, that degree represents a lot less actual usable knowledge, and the other 50% are simply left to twist in the wind. Think about the cost of discarding (or under-utilizing) the potential of half of your population.
So I guess my point is that tracking is good, if done right:
1) Give some general-ed classes to everyone, but allow them to pursue their interests.
2) Make it as demanding/competitive as possible,
3) Don't toss out people who don't have an interest in purely academic pursuits, or can't make it there, they deserve a good education also.
So many of the courses required of freshmen are fundamental things a student should have learned in high school or even well before that.
The way I see it is that the freshman year courses are designed to clean up gaps in knowledge left by the previous education system when the student leaves it. That is needed more and more due to our failing primary education system.
If a student actually needs one of those freshmen courses then they have no business being in college.
Sorry to be rude here but - bullshit.
I've known quite a few professionals in the world today who did horrible in the generic, churned-out, cookie cutter classrooms of standard schooling only to soar completely once left on their own to study freely.
"Bah!" - Dogbert
The world's richest college dropout complains that High Schools are poor. He went to private schools thirty years ago that his lawyer father paid for. He will be sending his kids to private schools.
What could be done if coporations like Microsoft payed their fair share of taxes? What could be done if they took their power as taxpayers to the school boards saying they are failing? What if Microsoft made it known that they will not invest in a community because of poor schools?
Instead they get tax breaks that shift taxes onto others. They send their kids to private schools. They only look at what will Bill his next billion and let the communities they are in go to hell. They will buy their way out, screw the rest of you.
Ok, I haven't even read the other sibling posts, but I don't think I'll find one that I agree with more, or that is more personally relevant.
In high school I read lots of science and technical books and whatnot- it was obviously what I was good at.
I did ok in AP courses, and used them to place out of as many "fluff" courses in college as possible.
I ended up with a masters in EE, the whole time minimizng the amount of time spent toward courses that didn't count toward my major. There were exceptions, and I enjoyed the occasional easy course / course that taught about topics utterly unrelated to any job I might be likely to end up with. But overall, I was very focussed on getting out with degrees that mattered.
Getting out of college, I got a job as a software engineer about two years ago. Now, I spent my leisure time reading about things that are not so narrow. Now that I have a car and a house (or rather, am borrowing said items from a bank that I am paying money to each month), I feel comfortable reading philosophy, mythology, and less focussed science texts.
I don't have a problem with being required to take a few noncore classes. I *do* have a problem with the inherent assumption that if the university didn't tell me to read a varied menu, I wouldn't- ever. I don't have the time and money to be the leisured intellectual, but I'm a lot closer now than when I was looking at prices for houses and realizing that without a *good* job fast, I'd be living in a hole- or worse, with my parents.
It would be nice if it were possible to major in art, or history, or *any* of those "soft" majors and not have to be immediately faced with "you may either know about your major, or you may live a normal life". It would be nice, basically, if we didn't have to work so hard, especially with our youth. There were two types of people who were enjoying their youth: the types who couldn't compete and knew it, and the types who didn't need to compete, and knew it (above average family finances would provide enough of a cushion for them). This is a lot of the people, mind you.
Most of my friends are still living with their parents, or they and their SOs have purchesed a place together (the necessity of a two income family is kinda scary).
Do we really have to work that hard? Is there really not enough to go around?
Doh! I hit Enter and sent this anonymously by accident. Allow me to sum up.
Bill Gates is absolutely right; schools in America are thoroughly broken. Our kids are getting dumber every year. Meddling parents, an advancement-only society, overtesting and reduced arts programming are combining to ensure that our kids learn less and less every year.
I think that social systems like software are best improved incrimentally and by as little as possible in order to make the system work.
Our public school system is obsolete and dates from a time when we were an industrial economy. In this environment, a high-school education was important, but the difference between an indistrial labor and a higher-paying management job was usually a matter of education. In this context things like encouraging high-school graduation and affirmative action made a lot of sense.
However, our economy no longer makes a division between industrial labor and management based on a level of education (there are a few industries which are exceptions). And one cannot earn a livable wage on a high-school diploma. The industrial jobs have largely left the country and we have low-paying menial service jobs and high paying information jobs (including management). In order to give everyone a chance at escaping poverty, we need to make sure that everyone has full access to a college education.
So rather than trying to redesign our high-school system, lets focus on making our college system more accessible to those of limited means. We cannot create a public school system which will teach people enough to really be able to do well in todays world by the time they are 18. We need to push that back to 22 and the BA/BS. The vision needs to be one where every American can afford a debt-free BA or BS.
Our education system must produce thoughtful and contemplative adults. I think there are a lot of people that just want universities to crank out trained worker bees at age 22.
I completely agree with you. I always tell people that it is better to get a degree in a field you love than study what you think might make you money. In the end, the former approach will give you many more skills which will in the end make you more successful even if HR departments are clueless (which they often are when you don't have a degree in the field they want you to have).
The economy has changed. We are now largely a knowledge and service-based economy with manufacturing and other sectors in slow decline. To be successful we need independent thinkers who can contribute ideas.
I studied very little computer science in college. Instead, I devoted the majority of my effort into studying history. As time went on, I took up philosophy and computer science as hobbies. I now do IT and programming for a living. Because HR departments want worker bees usually I work as a consultant, and my work speaks for itself. Indeed I credit much of my success to the fact that I have studied what I found interesting and developed strong critical thinking skills in the field.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
My two cents...
For me college is nothing more than a money-sucking machine. I am just one of its many cogs. As a freshman in college studying Computer Science, who has/is taken/taking 3xx-4xx CS courses, I find college to be a complete waste of my time. Correction - I find the "gened" classes to me a complete waste of my time. I think I better explain myself.
I love my CS classes. They are interesting, exciting and at my level (3xx-4xx courses) are quite challenging. I love my mathematics classes (currently taking 3xx level mathematics course in Linear Algebra). What I _don't_ like is being forced to waste my time every day doing assignments for fluff classes that I can't avoid. Look - there is nothing wrong with making sure you can still form coherent sentences. However, having 5-6 10-page assignments is pushing the boat a bit, considering I am NOT aiming for an English major, m'kay? Next - social sciences. Many of you will naturally respond in a condescending tone that 'these course will expand your mind.' I call bullshit. Having reviewed the course catalog, I have seen nothing of worth to expand my mind with. The list of courses from which I have to pick ranges from "Psych 101" to "feminism study." I think I can live without any of this shit. If only the courses offered actually EXPANDED my horizons by allowing me to indulge in say... Norse mythology or history of Astronomy, or an in-depth analysis of Dante's Inferno, OR A STUDY OF A FOREIGN LANGUAGE. But no. Study of a foreign culture's language is not a viable option for fulfilling the "cultural development" requirement of graduation, yet studying the plight of [insert-favorite-oppressed-group] is. A non sequitur at its finest.
To repeat a point already addressed by others in this discussion, I should state that I am PAYING these sons-of-a-bitches to waste my time and make my life miserable. This is coming out of my own pocket. I see the value of having a broad education, but "study of feminism and gender issues" and other similar redundant crap is NOT going to expand my mind. The classes that will give me a broad outlook on life - such as study of foreign languages (and I mean _study_, not the cursory, slanted and biased overview of some miniscule topic pertaining to some culture), mathematics (the Lin. Alg. course I am taking is not part of my fard. requirement, and thus is for my own enlightment only), history of major cultures in the past millenia and not of some minor occurance within the past 25 years, etc.
What the hell happened to the "trivium" and the "quadrivium" - the REAL liberal arts, as opposed to the crap forced down our throats that will simply make us clueless cogs, ready to be exploited by the system, instead of thinking sensible adults??
Since when was a school supposed to teach everything one needed? This is a very new idea - until very recently, it seems that "everything you needed" was learned outside of school, at your home, or a workplace (as an apprenticeship, etc...) School was, and to some extent still is, the place to learn academic subjects - those that, by definition, you don't really "need" for life. They certainly are good to know, but it's a different kind of learning. The concept that all your life and career skills would be taught in a school like this is, to be honest, a little bizarre.
When I was in elementary school (DODDS [Department of Defense Dependant Schooling]), we didn't have enough students to spread them out evenly for all of the grades. Twice, I was placed into a mixed-year class.
For some things, the whole class interacted with each other (reading time, recess, etc). But for much of the day, the teacher would teach one grade, while the other group did their classwork assignments. That time might've been otherwise been used by the teacher to grade papers -- but she didn't grade quizzes, tests, homework, or classwork -- the class did.
She would collect up all of our work, mix them up, and hand them back to the class, and give us red pens. If anyone got their own page, we had to trade with whoever was next to us. She'd read out the answers, and we'd mark them, and sign our name as the grader. She'd collect them, and do spot checks to make sure we didn't mess up. [someone could also complain if they were unfairly marked].
Now, in today's high schools, there are chances at people cheating -- spot checks can help, and if you find something was consistently boosting grades, you have it impact their grade negatively. Some folks might complain that kids might make fun of the others who don't get high grades -- yes, there's that chance [we actually had the opposite -- I remember getting teased for getting good grades], but there's also the possibility that if there isn't so much anomynity that kids will have reason to work harder.
I admit, this won't work for essay questions and longer reports, but there is no reason for teachers to be taking home stacks of papers to grade every night. Sure, they might mean well, and be dedicated to their job, but it's like anything -- work smarter, not harder.
I admit, I'm not a teacher, but I do have a few friends who are teachers, and occassionally drop by my highschool, more than 10 years later. [I actually gave a talk, when I accidentally dropped in on the day they were covering 'The Internet' and 'Search Engines'] -- it seems to me that the problem isn't so much the size, but problems with such a heterogeneous mix of students. Some students are solitary learners, some learn by example, some are very visual, some like story context, and some have to learn by doing.
It might be possible to take the same idea above (more than one 'class', but instead of seperating by age -- seperate by learning style. [I'm not sure which would be easier to handle, and this would probably need some tests run to validate the idea]
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Imagine if we ever taught students to actually think about history, literature, or economics rather than making sure that they memorized the answers for the test?
What if we really encouraged students to ask the primary questions of philosophy before introducing them to the ideas of philosophers:
Metaphysics: "What is the nature of things?"
Aesthetics: "What is the nature of Beauty?"
Ethics: "What is the nature of Good?"
In essence what if we really taught our students to think rather than to be good test-passing machines?
What if we actually had professionals come in and explain to algegra classes why algebra is so useful and how they use it? And what if we told more young women about the likes of Grace Hopper and Augusta Ada Byron? Would we not inspire children to learn more about the world around them?
My son is now 14 months old, and I keep thinking more and more about how to prepare for his eventual schooling and make sure he can think and approach matters of substance.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I have several friends that have been a year in the US, studying at a high school (yes, the foreign exchange students that always seem senile in the hollywood movies,) and even the ones that I would hardly classify as "smart", "clever" or "hard-working" got very good grades. They also said that nearly all tests were multiple choice, opposed to the tests here in Denmark, where we usually have to write long explanations.
Now, don't flame me if I'm wrong. After all, I've never studied at a US high school myself. But is any of this actually true?
The actual problem with schools are that they are not focusing enough on the core needs upon which all education rests.
Personally, I think that schools should teach only three things; Language, Mathematics, and Discipline.
With language, all knowledge is merely a library away, and communication will be a lot easier than it is for a good number of people.
With mathematics, just about anything can be quantified.
With discipline, a person can successfully organize the above two skills into a weapon with which to attack their future.
Once the schools finish with those three very important skills, the student can then begin the process of building the rest of their own education. Higher learning can still be available, but they should be optional and specialized based on what the student is interested in learning, rather than forcing the student to learn their way.
The Penguin Producer
from Buckminster Fuller, in 1972:
I think universities are completely obsolete. I think they're having these troubles because they're supposed to be eliminated. There's very little that goes on at a university that can't be done better otherwise. The biggest raison d'être for the present system is the security of the professor. He's got tenure. Has anybody else got tenure? Hell, no. Those tenure boys are really a shame; they're so businesslike, they really look out for themselves.
Once you eliminate the obsolete structure and the emphasis on earning a living, people will go to the university because they want to use themselve and explore their wonderful capabilities. Humanity will carry on beautifully if you don't mix them up with earning a living. We'll make wonderful use of those buildings and all that equipment. That's what the tenure boys are so scared of. They've been living on the idea of monopolizing the information, but now they see the time coming when the big idea ill be to proliferate it and try to see that everybody gets to share it.
I belong to the ______ generation.
I'm going to assume that the same person wrote these. It's so nice when people are willing to stand behind everything that they say.
That said, your post clearly fits the definition of a troll because it adds nothing to the discussion aside from: a) You're stupid for quoting somebody, b) you're even stupider for quoting somebody I dislike.
Your continued exploration (?) of this theme in your latest post only confirms that you are: a) a troll, and b) possibly a shithead by your own definition (since I tend to find that I dislike people with nothing better to do than to write "you're stupid!" posts).
Or why don't you post with your real nick, so that we can all see how intelligent and reasonable a person you are, and how wrong I am I so malign you?
It's true taxes are higher in Canada, but for most people -- the middle class -- they're not that different. And while you may get taxed in one area you might make out better in others -- such as unlimited capital gains exemption on your primary residence, vs. $250/500k in the US.
Cost of living is generally lower too, especially in the cities. Vancouver may be expensive, but it's more affordable for its citizens than NYC, DC, SF, or "the OC" are for theirs. I'm always amazed at how many young (30) Vancouverites with average jobs I meet who own their own houses and condos. In any major metro area in the US nowadays, this is limited to the extremely successful or the already rich.
Higher taxes or not, I believe Canadians actually have a higher standard of living than Americans -- even if the standard measures don't show it. The real challenge for most Americans in Canada would not be taxes, but long, cold, dark winters.
Our high schools have long been designed to provide worker bees, and some argue this is deliberate...
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Personal enjoyment.
That's not learning for learning's sake. That's learning for the sake of enjoying oneself. I maintain: education is never the goal in and of itself. It's always a means to an end. In this case, it's fun.
Which is a great reason for education, in my honest opinion.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I went to a school that serves the communities around montpelier, VT. It was started in the 1970s when the HS in Montpellier was becoming overcrowded. A community planning board came up with numerous "out of the box" ideas.
Students address teachers by their first name. There were no interior walls so adjacent classrooms could be joined together to work on inter-disclipinary lessons. No grades. No penalty for missing classes - you want to learn, you go to class, just like college. No bells - the passing of Bands (bands of time) is marked by music. No study halls - Students spend free bands in the student lounge or in the library or in outside areas of the campus. No homeroom - every morning the first place we went was our Teacher advisor group; a mentor who guided you through your career at u-32 and was your advocate if you ever were in trouble or had a scheduling problem, basically a virtual parent. No prepackaged AP curriculem.
Not all these rules were still in effect when I went there in the 90s. We had grades and penalties for missing classes. And some more permanent walls had been built. But the rest remained, a unique public school.
What is harder to give a sense of is a faculty that generally loved teaching and the classesd they were teaching. Perhaps this is because the original faculty was recruited from all across the USA, not just the local towns. There was no pre-determined plan for what students chose to learn. After freshman year, which was fairly regimented, you got to choose your path. I took Public Speaking, Humanities, Film as Literature, Future literature, Journalism and Advanced Expository Writing. These were not the only options, and the same was true for History, Math and Science depts.
As an artist I also was blessed to have more art electives to choose from than anyone could have time for, and this was not unique to the visual arts department.
It would be easy to write this off as some hippy school in Vermont that would not work anywhere else, but I don't think that's true. Teachers who are passionate about what they teach and are given enough leeway to create exciting curriculums can give a meaningful public school education. Young adults can act like adults if they are treated like them. Teachers who interested in a subject can teach it just as well as they can teach their college major. As many other posters have mentioned, there is more to an education than preparing yourself to work at a corporation, or even to go on to higher education. (For the interest of full disclosure, my mother is an english teacher in middle-school and I had the unique experience of knowing many of my teachers inside and outside the classroom. Believe me I did not get any special treatment in class for this.)
I've long said that the western Education system needs an overhaul, that University needs to be relegated back to being the place for MDs, Lawyers and Engineers, that trades/appreticeships need to be given more legitimacy and pride, and so on.
But three simple course additions to the current system would improve things, I think: logic, debate, Latin.
Logic: So many kids going through public school actually knows how to think anymore. Elementary logic simply is NOT being taught.
Debate: See above, then tack on that so many people seem unable to actually discuss or debate a difference of opinion; only to state theirs, then attack viciously anybody who disagrees.
Latin: Mainly I think this would help produce better English speakers. Hard to think and debate when you can barely speak the language correctly.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
In reply to the umpteen posts arguing that courses unrelated to your specialty are useful, I say this:
Yes, they are useful and valuable.
No, I shouldn't *have* to spend 30,000 out of my 40,000 student loan on unrelated courses so I can get a degree that says I took the other 10,000 worth of courses.
At this rate, I will explicitly discourage my children from going to college, because it's not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt. Learn your job on the job, learn your language and culture and classical literature because you want to, and don't be stuck in debt till you're 40. Life is to be lived, and we all seem to be losing track of that. We're all more interested in how much we can borrow and how long we can take to pay it back. In almost all cases, I'd rather go without rather than suffer years of debt.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.