Parent Questions Mandatory High School Chemistry

Ollabelle writes "David Bernstein, a nonprofit executive who lives in Gaithersburg, Md., has two sons, ages 7 and 15. He has previously written about how schools fail students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Now he turns his attention to mandated curriculum in public schools, and argues that his sons shouldn't be forced to take any science class." From the article: "There’s a concept in economics called 'opportunity costs,' which you may not have learned about because you were taking chemistry instead of economics. Opportunity costs are the sacrifices we make when we choose one alternative over another. ... When you force my son to take chemistry (and several other subjects, this is not only about chemistry), you are not allowing him that same time to take a public speaking course, which he could be really good at, or music, or political science, or creative writing, or HTML coding for websites."

Comments

Translation

[crazyjj]

My kid sucks at chemistry and, like all pussy-ass parents today, I don't have the heart to tell him that he's not incredible at everything (and don't want to risk him finding out by taking a class where he doesn't get an automatic "A").

Re:Translation

[rsmither]

I don't think this has to be the case at all. It is true that there are a lot of courses that we force students to take, especially at the high school and college levels, that won't really help them in their career choice. For example, when was the last time you needed to convert moles to something else (how many just went to google to find the formulas)?

I would agree that there should be a basic understanding, but really, most of what you need to know for daily life could be done in a month or two at most freeing up time for other subjects.

Granted, I have no idea how this would play out in a normal high school setting. But as I see it, we aren't exactly doing the greatest job teaching skills that are needed to compete in today's world and perhaps more choice/customization of a learning curriculum would produce more viable people for the workforce.

Re:Translation

[Unknown Lamer]

Conversion of the starches in malted grain to sugar is certainly a chemical process: you have to maintain the pH just so, the temperatures just right, to encourage particular kinds of conversion by various enzymes. Adjusting mineral concetrations and such in the water is also (not really intense) chemistry. Making wine involves even more chemistry: free SO_2 testing, pH adjustments, total acidity control, etc. involve lots of reagents and I found the basic recollection of even just learning how to e.g. do titrations from high school chemistry made things a lot easier.

There's biology involved too in the fermentation process itself, and hey! Encourages 'em to learn that too ;)

Re:Translation

[Random2]

Knee-jerk reaction detected! Didn't RTFA to boot! No wonder slashdot's moderators love you!

That's not what he's saying at all, but the poorly worded ./ summary and article set up so people, like yourself, can flame him easily without actually understanding what he's saying. He's not talking about his kid sucking at chemistry, nor is he blaming anyone for it, or even saying his kid should be good at it. What he's saying is that a distinct lack of variation in public education will only harm students in the long run. Perhaps high-school is a long time ago for you, but looking at the current American curriculum shows a very distinct lack of variability. For a personal example, the only time I actually got to choose a class I wanted to take in high-school was around senior year, every other class was part of some 2, 3, or 4, year plan that every student had to go through in order to graduate. 3 years of science, 4 years of English classes, 3 of a foreign language, 3 for history/civic involvement, etc. There was barely any time to do what I wanted to do.

This is not to say that students shouldn't be exposed to a variety of courses. That diversity allows for a students to explore a range of topics and find one they're interested in. But, once they've found that subject, they should be allowed to pursue it. If a kid wants to be an auto mechanic for the rest of his life, then let hem learn about that. If they're into business, then let them take the courses about business. Locking them into a 'standardized program' doesn't magically make them a successful adult or magically teach them the skills they need to know in order to be a member of society.

Basically,a 'cookie-cutter' approach is not the proper way to teach, but that's how the system is currently designed.

Re:Translation

[Minwee]

Biology is really chemistry.

Chemistry is really physics.

Physics is really math.

And math is really hard.

Re:Translation

[MightyMartian]

Exactly. The point of teaching sciences, and indeed even home economics, is to expose students to a wide range of knowledge. Obviously most people are not going to go on to be industrial chemists or biologists, but still, even passing knowledge of a subject allows at least some ability to evaluate, and more importantly encourages some ability to generalize.

What this guy is looking for is an excuse to remove his kids from hard courses, make their lives easier, and that's just about the biggest mistake at all. Basically the guy is saying "My kids are so fucked up, all I can expect is that they'll be able to blabber to a crowd or make web pages." I feel sorry for those kids.

Re:Translation

[thomasw_lrd]

This isn't just a chemistry problem though. All my kids are learning are how to pass a test. Not how to learn. They have no problem solving skills, unless I teach them. They aren't even taught real long division anymore. While I don't find long division in and of itself a useful discipline, the problem solving that is learned in learning long division is very important (at least IMO) for the rest of math.

It's like geometry. Proofs were stupid in high school, but when I took abstract algebra, I wished I had learned more. While I understand every student will not need to learn abstract algebra or even how to do partial fractional derivatives, the problem solving aspect is the most important.

It's not just about chemistry.

[ZorinLynx]

Chemistry class isn't just about chemistry. It also teaches critical thinking and problem solving skills. Having to balance chemical reactions, though it may be useless to 95% of people in the real world, is one example of a skill that improves one's thinking ability when they learn it.

I also feel it's essential for people to know the basics on how the world works. High school chemistry isn't exactly hard.

That's what college/university is for...

[Assmasher]

...not elementary, middle, and high school curricula.

You may just have to accept that your kids are going to suck at things.

Think of all the money you'll save from buying your own "Congratulations on 10th place!" ribbons.

Heinlein on (Over) Specialization

[fallen1]

I've dropped this quote on /. before in a similar conversation, but it applies just as much if not MORE here:

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
  Robert A. Heinlein

Re:Heinlein on (Over) Specialization

[jedidiah]

A lot of that stuff Heinlein mentioned either falls into basic survival skills or knowledge you need in order to not be taken advantage of by specialists. Even if you outsource something, you need to have enough of a clue to be able to judge the results.

Willful ignorance is an open invitation to those that would see to take advantage of you.