Slashdot Mirror
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."
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").
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Now I don’t begrudge chemistry, which has brought forth many of the great inventions of our time, from the pain killer I took an hour ago to the diet soda I’m sipping on now (I’m actually sipping on Scotch. In fact, my very own mother, who if I am lucky will never lay eyes on this article, is a chemist, and believes that chemistry is the most noble of human pursuits and doesn’t understand how I, a former philosophy major, was able to eke out a living.
And if you wouldn't have wasted your time on that public speaking course and instead used that opportunity cost to take a class in a Lisp language like Scheme you'd understand why your failure to close that left parenthesis is driving me bat shit insane right now.
My work here is dung.
This guy is acting like as if his son will be forced to take chemistry all his life. There are some basic classes everyone takes and then as kids progress through school the curriculum becomes more and more flexible. Now if he is super interested in other classes I am sure he can point his kids towards simpler startup classes in coursera etc that might help. May be some thing is available for public speaking also. Or he has the option of homeschooling his kid.
It seems like that article is nothing more than a soapbox to declare that his kid is special and precious. So your kid doesn't like chemistry and would rather take a class that's much harder, like public speaking. Fuck off.
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.
He is insulting the education (and probably passion) of his own mother. He should simply shut up.
Besides, ADHD is overdiagnosed. He probably just has a spoiled kid that never learned to sit still for half a minute.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
...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.
Loading...
Before jumping to some assumption that he is a bible thumping moron (I made the same assumption at first), you should read the article. He doing make very valid points. He actually says he would like to replace full classes on topics like chemistry with several survey classes that expose students to many subjects before they choose the ones they are interested in. This sounds like a great idea. I was a physics major in college, and even I found my high school Physics class hardly useful at all. Not nearly enough depth to gain useful knowledge, and those who will never use it weren't paying attention anyway.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Sounds fantastic.. want this kind of granularity, homeschool the kids for a year or so yourself, then have them rejoin the public school to finish up Junior and Senior year. Present it as a compromise with the school folks. They might just go for it! NEXT!
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
K-12 is for BASICS. College is for options...
Student need to be exposed to all sorts of topics so they can find out what they like and are good at. His kid might be good at public speaking but might have a passion for chemistry. Chemistry is also a good life skill, how else would you be able to read the ingredients on the cereal box?
I fully support the "students should be allowed to choose more subjects that specifically interest and fit them" part of his argument. I, a nuclear scientist, would even go so far as to say no, most students shouldn't have to take high school chemistry. I would completely support replacing 3-4 high school science classes in various subjects with one very strong, well designed course on the scientific method; that would be a wonderful step towards having students learn the philosophy that might stay with them the rest of their lives instead of reciting formulas and tables they'll forget a week after finals. But to just say "take out science" is a terrible idea.
Maybe he needs to consider the lost opportunity cost of not taking a chemistry class when it's available to his children in school. How many people have a full-blown, school-level chemistry lab with cool chemicals and tools to work with in their homes (with hoods and acids that can eat your face off)? How much will it cost to do it in college, with textbook and lab costs along with tuition?
Is this a troll? How can anyone advocate for decreasing their child's knowledge?
There were certainly subjects that I wasn't good at, but even those classes taught me a few things that I wouldn't have otherwise known.
he's just stupid, rather than outright troll.
tell me mr bernstein - what good is being able to speak if you know nothing to speak of?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
He states very bluntly that his 15 year old son "will not be a scientist". How does he know that?
I'm 40 now and I can't think of a single thing from chemistry I've ever used. I can't even remember anything from the class.
Then again as a counterpoint I've never really used electronics, which I had 4 years of in high school, but I swear I think back to that class frequently when problem solving, from "split-halving" a problem to logic gates to make flowcharts and so on. Probably more than any class I had, electronics really taught me how to break down a problem and put together a solution.
I get the idea of a "core curriculum" to expose students to things, but I remain unsure as to whether things are currently makes much sense. I took chemistry, which went fairly into depth, but at the cost of not taking physics (chemistry satisfied the requirement). I'd rather have had a class which touched on each of these subjects for perhaps a quarter to half a year, spread out over two years, than a full year of chemistry, with the option to take a more in-depth science course for years three and four.
But I have to say, nothing I learned in chemistry stuck or was useful like electronics was.
I love history but I think it is taught poorly -- that's an area ripe for consolidation and fixing...social studies and English in general.
The summary here is saying the exact opposite of the article. He's saying the kid shouldn't be forced into Chemistry if he can survey OTHER science classes... Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
From the summary:
"... argues that his sons shouldn't be forced to take ANY science class."
From the article:
"Maybe kids can survey several science classes over the course of a year or two, and explore various options"
While basic understanding and comprehension can be quite varied, our knowledge which determines our intelligence is based entirely on learning 'things'. The average person who thinks they "forget everything" about an introductory class is kidding themselves. I only took an introduction to Chemistry and I couldn't tell you off the top of my head half of the conversions I learned, but that doesn't make the information any less available. I remember information about relating different types of matter, universal constants in reactions. Definitions of basic words like exothermic, endothermic, etc. and most importantly I learned. Sure the material may not have been my particular forte, but making yourself work at something shows what you can accomplish and allows you to think differently whether you realise it or not. If more Language (by this I mean native language spoken) classes were enforced as well perhaps we wouldn't live in such an illiterate, made-up acronym world.
There is a really simple answer to this problem. If you don't like the educational priorities selected by those who determine them in school curricula, teach your children yourself. While you still might have to meet these criteria, the amount of actual time spent doing so would be at your discretion.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
How do they work? Yes your child and every other child in the school system is required to take a certain number of classes to graduate from high school. There are other optional classes which one can take whenever they want. THESE ARE WHERE YOUR CHILD CHOOSES PROGRAMMING or PUBLIC SPEAKING COURSES. FFS, if you're really desperate about getting him out of chemistry, make him take it during the summer when it's easy. Then he can take cake classes during the school year with the additional elective credit that opens up.
It was high school chemistry, particularly organic, that really got me to where I am today. Had I not been required to take at least one introductory class, I don't think I would have had the pragmatism at that age to sign up on my own. I also had to study Shakespeare, which I can't really say has contributed to my career, but it's made me a more well-rounded person. Being educated doesn't only mean being scholarly, it also means being open-minded.
The money is for the people that play in the stock market, after all, why study anything else and just focus everyone education full to economy? Uh, and lawyers, specially IP related. Why to be part of the 99% if we could all be in the top 1%?
Other than the obvious point of high school, which is to provide a prison-like environment for our children so we can all take a little break from them, he's truly missed the point of high school.
High school has nothing to do with what you are going to do in real life. Oh, it may seem that way in your last year, but in truth, all you really end up deciding at that stage what you might do in the grossest of terms.
No. High school is supposed to be about building mental abilities that will allow you to go out into the world and function as a reasonably useful person. What you learn is somewhat important, but learning how to learn and apply material effectively is what you are really there for.
Think of it this way. Athletes spend a lot of time on the practice field learning their sport. But they also spend a lot of time in the gym building muscle. If they didn't build those muscles up with time in the gym, they might understand their own sport, but they'd have a hard time succeeding at it because they didn't spend time building up the general muscle required to apply that knowledge.
Never once at a football game have I seen a quarterback call for the reverse arm curl play. But I doubt you'd get any arguments from a football player that time in the gym was time well spent. The same applies for academics. You may never need to know how to do trig, or compose a sonnet, but doing those things in high school helps build up mental muscle for later.
So yes. You do have to do things you suck at, because, not surprisingly, you get the most out of learning how to do things you suck at. As to who decides what you'll take, well, that's easy. Gather your facts that describe why you think a change should be made, put them together in a cohesive argument, write a paper that shows how your plan will provide positive change, and then present it to the folks who decide. (Of course, you might find this hard if you didn't take Math, Science, English and Social Studies in high school...)
How does the parent know what the child will like?
Answer to both: they don't.
But if you do a smattering of the major sections of a well rounded education you may find that chemistry is interesting. Or home economics intriguing. But the child has to try it first and the parent cannot and should not interfere. It isn't THEIR life they're manipulating, so stop it.
Chemistry class: 39 minutes per day
Teaching a kid a variety of subjects so he will have something to talk about when he does take public speaking in college: 18 years
Cleaning up chemicals spilled by your ADD kid who wasn't paying attention: 6 minutes
Getting acquainted with the flow rate of the emergency eyewash station: 5 minutes
Teaching a kid that ignoring science can be hazardous to your health: Priceless
There are some things you will never find time for. For everything else, there are pretentious self-important jerks like David Bernstein.
When you force my son to take subjects which which he doesn’t connect, you are not allowing them 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.
Turns out the whole argument is rather weakened by the editor's note stating that chemistry isn't specifically required, just a certain amount of science of which chem is one option.
I still find it hard to believe that there are so few elective hours available that the kid couldn't fulfill the science requirement and take music, political science, creative writing or programming. Maybe I'm really old and things are much different now, but I didn't miss out on the electives I wanted to take just because I took chemistry and physics. There was still time for band, foreign language, a political science course (required) and even programming.
But my son is not being exposed to chemistry, he’s spending a year of his life studying chemistry every day, which translates into a year of misery for him and our entire family, and paying for tutors who just get him through the course.
I think this is the real complaint: "The kid doesn't like chemistry and might not get an A. Therefore, he shouldn't have to take it."
I am not a crackpot.
... a time when general ignorance of things like chemistry, biology, physics, and geology permitted people to be suckered in to believing that the world was flat, the sun, moon and stars went around it, that it was around 6000 years old and created in six days by an Old Guy with a proclivity to go off on rants and wipe out entire populations with floods or fire and brimstone if he got pissed off (and nearly anything pissed him off).
Oh, wait, that's still true today for 46% of the population of the US, according to at least one horrific poll. And you want permission to add your own son to the list of the terminally ignorant... shame on you.
I have a son who has serious ADD as well -- so much so that he will likely never finish college (he's started it several times but his dysfunction is too severe to make it through, at least so far). It plagued him through high school. He sucked at science and math in high school. But he benefitted enormously from taking the courses -- even when he failed or did very poorly while passing. Even in failure or a low pass, he learned that the science is a consistent statement of knowledge and not casually to be rejected on the basis of faulty or non-existent or hearsay evidence (like the Book of Genesis). Even in failure or a low pass he learned enough chemistry to be able to appreciate the molecular description of the quotidian universe. Even in failure or a low pass he learned enough math and math concepts to be able to hand the math needed in the everyday world, enough to engage in conceptual reasoning and to use logic, geometry, visualization in argumentation.
With that said, every student is unique, and with some students (including all students with mild mental retardation as well as many with reasonable intelligence but serious learning disabilities) math/science requirements are indeed pissing into the wind. However, dealing with this isn't a matter of modifying the general curriculum -- it is a matter of accepting the fact that your kid is LD and needs a special curriculum, perhaps one with a specialized and limited treatment of science, which in fact is often available in schools now.
But enrollment in those courses stigmatizes and traumatizes the enrollee, marking them as relatively "dumb". So instead we should just dumb down the curriculum for everybody else to match...
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
There are several states which do not require the teaching of science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_United_States
you are not allowing him that same time to take a public speaking course, which he could be really good at
Right, exactly. Because, see, K-12 education is not about having your kid do really well at things. It's about instilling a modicum of basic skills and understanding. This is why the kids who suck at math still have to take math, and the kids who suck at writing have to take English, et cetera. A public speaking class won't teach him anything about how the most powerful approach to discovering knowledge humanity has ever tried works, and a multi-science survey course will do so much less effectively than a single in-depth look at one science.
Not that he's likely to actually learn anything given your attitude, but, at least it's a better chance than if you were being allowed to make the decisions.
High school gives you a broad overview so you enter adulthood with half a clue, so you can understand to some degree what the media, advertisers, etc. are telling you. After high school nothing prevents additional education, in fact, shouldn't education really be an ongoing process? If the author really sees high school as a last chance to learn something like 'public speaking', what a sad sad statement.
Mind you, that kind of attitude does pave the way for the fulfilment of Ayn Rand's vision of how things should be.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
You've basically said his point, but drew a different conclusion
What he's trying to say is that chemistry isn't the only way for a kid to learn those skills. For example, programming is good for learning logic, but so is a philosophy or a debate class. But, if a kid is stuck in a 'standardized' program that only allows him to take programming, then he may never know that he actually likes debate or philosophy. Perhaps the other classes would convey information in a way that he can better understand, or perhaps they could even lead to more. But, without the option to try them out, he'll never know.
Chemistry, the specific example used for a general case, isn't the only class which will teach critical thinking or problem solving and it is pure folly to believe so. It is also not the only course which examines the fundamentals of how the world works, and focusing solely on it will disallow study in other fundamental or interesting areas. But, that's how the curriculum is currently designed, and is continuing to advance in that direction. David is saying that's not the proper way to handle education.
"Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
...mandated curriculum in public schools...
If you go to school on the public's dime, the public has every right to tell you what classes you have to take. If the guy were arguing against government regulations on private schools I would be willing to entertain arguments about whether parents and educators should be choosing the curriculum without government interference. But he's talking about a public school.
Americans have two interests in forcing the child to study chemistry. The first is that we have a huge need for chemists and other people in STEM fields. Arts are nice, but long term strength and viability of country lie more in the ability to produce new technology.
The second is that people vote and serve on juries. Voters and jurists need to have a well-rounded education.
As for public speaking - who does that benefit other than the speaker? Sure its important to for people to be able to communicate, but once you get past basic competence public speaking become used more for persuasion than for information dissemination. How does it help society for advertisers and politicians to become even better liars? If the kid specializes in public speaking, how does it help society that he knows nothing but can talk about it extremely well?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Maybe the father is some kind of religious loony^Wzealot or similar. In which case, he should get ready to exuberantly congratulate his spawn for coming last in chemistry, with the words that "the last shall be first" or some such nonsense.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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.
Exactly how many high school students have you actually met that knew what they wanted to do for the rest of their life at age 15? I guarantee you the answer is a pretty good approximation of zero when compared with the student population. Oh sure there are a few, but not many. I work with high school students as a coach and most of them simply aren't anywhere close to that focused. While I agree that there needs to be room for electives there also needs to be a substantial core curriculum, some of which may not be interesting to a given student. I don't really use calculus in my daily life but I'm glad I was required to take the class. I understand more about the world around me and I was forced to think about things that I might not have if given a choice.
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.
Nor does it obviously hurt their ability to become a productive member of society. Even with a customized curriculum most of what you learn in school will not play much of a role in your daily life. The most important things that are being taught are how to learn and how to work - not specific subjects. I have a degree in engineering but don't think for a moment that I was fully prepared for my current job the moment I finished school. It would not have mattered a bit how flexible or not my curriculum happened to be. The reason employers care about whether you have a college degree is that it tells them that you have at least some capacity to work. They don't assume for a minute that you are perfectly trained for whatever career you seek. Furthermore if a student really wants to pursue a special interest they are welcome to do so outside of school. Never confuse schooling with education.
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
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
what good is being able to speak if you know nothing to speak of?
You can become the President.
Parents certainly have a tendency to "know" what their children like. Just like they "know" what careers they should pursuit, what kind of spouse is right for them, how they should dress, how their kids would never do that..., etc.. Of course it's possible to find a set of parents that are actually in the loop with their kids, but it's more likely to find parents that have their own preferences and rosy colored glasses though which they understand their kids. That is, assuming they're even engaged in their kid's life in the first place.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
To prevent travesties like this.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
The ability for a kid to 'choose their own path' or seek a trade school is a marginal topic and isn't what the article is discussing. But, in relation to 'college preparation' what exactly does that mean? A 'college' is very loosely defined, and there are a variety of ways to 'prepare' for one. A large state school might favor one type of application, Harvard certainly favors another, a technical college looks for other qualities, while a liberal arts school goes a completely different direction. Since there are so many different types of institutions and things one needs to learn, how does a standard and generic education over all of them? How can it even cover most? For example, that chemistry or automotive class might foreclose the option of a pursuit in the arts or entertainment. That situation will occur no matter how the curriculum is designed. However, limiting the variations of those foreclosures won't produce a group with a variety of interests and skills, it will produce a very narrowly focused group with all the same skills. That should not be the focus of high school. High school should focus on providing the skills students need to decide what they want to do, but that is such a vague and general concept that it has endless variations on how to fulfill it.
Is it better to have achieved a depth of knowledge and later realize that it wasn't needed instead of never knowing in the first place? Probably. Is there more than one way to attain that knowledge? Certainly. He's saying we should allow for other ways to obtain that depth of knowledge in public schools, and conversely that limiting the educational choices impedes success in other useful and enlightening areas.
"Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
Yup, let us have kids grow up without knowing basic chemistry, excellent idea. I mean, what possible relevance could it have to their later lives.
Who wants adults to be able to grasp the fact that there is a brand name for drugs and a chemical name, and 500mg of paracetamol is the same thing whether you get the generic one for a few cents or the $10 strip for Panadol/Crocin/Tylenol or whatever other fancy brand name it's known by and widely advertised on your country.
Why would we need our kids to see through bullshit marketing speak like 'all natural', 'chemical free', that bottled spring/mineral water isn't healthier than purified water.
Why would we ever want them to realize how homeopathy makes no fucking sense?
Why would we want them to understand how a soft drink with 50g of sugar is about four tablespoons of sugar, that if they get a double sized drink they get double the sugar, that sugar free drink actually have almost zero calories - it is amazing how many people tell me that 'less than one calorie' is just advertising bullshit.
Why on earth does anyone need a clue about what 'radiation' is, and why the banana you just ate was radioactive and why we sometimes go to a hospital willingly to get zapped by radiation?
Why would anyone need to have a basic idea of thermodynamics, to realize how perpetual motion machines are impossible, why nuclear fission doesn't generate CO2 while all fossil fuels do?
A basic idea of what biodegradable means and why plastics are not biodegradable?
To have a clue about what 'BPA free' means before telling everyone why they need to buy a $50 BPA free water bottle?
Just what we need, a population completely ignorant about basic science, yet brought up to believe that they have a right to form their own opinion on everything and their opinion is as good as anyone else.
Seriously, has this guy ever met someone who didn't have the chance to go to school, to learn basic mathematics, or even to read? Your kids actually have the chance to go to school, unlike half the kids in the world, and you feel they are learning too much?
And it's a stupid false dichotomy that if you learn basic science you won't have time to learn other stuff. Kids have plenty of time and I don't know one adult who doesn't regret not having learned more when they were young. Take a break form the XBox, the TV, or the trashy comics. I am not saying kids shouldn't have fun, but I haven't met many people who've grown up feeling they sohuld have spent more time watching Scooby Doo instead of learning to play a musical instrument.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're living the past.
1) Russia hasn't been communist since the first Geroge Bush was president.
2) Neither Russia nor China have practiced that kind of educational system in a long time, if they ever even did. I know people in the ex-USSR and China and I've talked to them about their education and I don't know anybody who's been forced into a field of study.
Nope. Classics are things which everyone would like to have read but nobody wants to read. Most of it is glorified crap that bored English professors coaxed hidden meanings and interpretations out of. I only enjoyed To Kill a Mockingbird and Catch 22, most of the other books I was forced to read were terrible and almost ruined my love of reading. I really liked reading in grade school then began reading less and less as "classic literature" was forced down my throat and nearly ruined my appetite for reading all together.
We took economics. We also pay attention to the world. For instance, we see public speakers all the time who make absurdly stupid statements regarding scientific fact (as in: getting it blatantly wrong) because they don't have a basic understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. These courses in High School aren't meant to be doctorate programs. They aren't significant time investments. They're meant to provide a basic understanding of what we know about our world, to provide well rounded basic knowledge to people.
What happens, though, when a person finds something they're really good at or they enjoy immensely, is that they do it. A lot. Outside of class. If someone truly enjoys public speaking, they will be doing it more outside of class than inside of class. Learning more facts and becoming smarter WRT to the world around them is not going to inhibit this. If they're fascinated by political science, they're going to be on wikipedia, at the library, or even talking to local municipal leaders if the parent is capable of supporting their child enough to that end (here: you are the bottleneck, not your child's chemistry course). If they enjoy creative writing, they're probably going to be writing. Look at Harry Potter. What do you think mixing ingredients into a pot and getting some magical result correlates to in the real world? Chemistry. If you've learned even basic Chemistry, it feels like magic. There's a good motivator for creative writing, being inspired and in awe of something, even if you don't care to learn how it works to every detail. And HTML coding (it's not coding, it's a markup language, it's more like writing).. it's the same thing. Students specialize outside of school. If they are talented enough, they can even stop there, but being more well-rounded never hurts a person. It's a few courses in High School, before most even become lucid to the world around them. It's a background, not a lifetime investment.