How to improve American Education in 2021. (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Paul

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2021
    Messages
    2,155
    Reaction score
    712
    Location
    Latin American from Potomac, Maryland 20854
    Offline
    The most recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science.


    My suggestion is rather simple.

    1. Study why immigrants from East Asia, India, and Nigeria do well with American education. Apply that insight to other groups (if possible).
    2. Manage public schools as if though they were private schools with uniforms and discipline.
    3. Create high end special schools for those that are truly disenfranchised.
    4. Create a force of social workers to treat family dysfunction with regards to education.
    5. Reduce the curriculum to the simple basics and repeat that on a yearly basis.
    6. At about 10th grade divide college bound students away from non-college bound.
    7. Provide solid basic education and trade training for non-college bound kids. There is no point in offering free college to these kids.
     
    Last edited:
    You are like a drunk uncle with dunning-kruger.
    Another insulting remark. You lack critical thinking analytical skills. I encourage you to study the concept of sexual dimorphism and why it happens. We are here to learn something and not to exchange insulting remarks. Lastly your insult would make Freud very proud.
     
    “The new generation is on their cell phones and not as social as adults”.

    I’d make the argument having had to manage this coronavirus stuff over the past 2 years that the younger group is far more social than anyone gives them credit for. It may not look how you view communication, but they are very in touch with each other. I’d be willing to say they are far better at communication, where they may fail is one on one face to face. But that’s only one portion of communication.
    Sure, social media makes communication easier, but it is not person to person. Nevertheless, your point is well taken.
    I dunno where your socialism comment works in. That one just baffles me. Or is that just the hip new way of calling someone lazy? I’m reminded of a story my wife told me. A coworkers son was always online. Messing around. Wouldn’t get a job. His son had his dad do his taxes. Through his YouTube channel he was making more than his dad was. Not saying that’s every young person, but some are making surprising money in ways you just can’t imagine.
    Your hang up on evolution i still don’t get.
    The young people loved Bernie Sanders to a greater extent than other groups.
    And there is data nowhere that supports that. None. Why do you think short of extreme cases kids are never taken from parents?
    I am not saying take the kids away. Boarding school is a luxury only available to the rich.
     
    Are we trying to say that humans are so different from the rest of the animals on this planet that the females have, since we first as a species crawled out of a cave or were created by dirt, picked the smallest, weakest and most docile males to mate with?

    I don't get the push back on this basic fact. Why?
     
    Are we trying to say that humans are so different from the rest of the animals on this planet that the females have, since we first as a species crawled out of a cave or were created by dirt, picked the smallest, weakest and most docile males to mate with?

    I don't get the push back on this basic fact. Why?
    Yeah and so how does the fact that that happened make any difference? And no, the biggest and strongest weren’t. It was the ones who could provide the best. We are not deer smacking antlers in a field
     
    Just by reading this it shows you have absolutely no clue about many things. As I explained earlier your math reasoning and critical thinking abilities are far more important than straight up computation. I’d rather have ten kids who can think through a problem and use a calculator than a bunch of kids who can do awesome computation but can’t figure out how to solve a problem.
    I do not disagree. East Asians score better in tests but are less creative or innovative than Americans. Nevertheless, East Asians and the kids on Indian immigrants are beter educated and have a higher income. Lastly, I have to respectfully say that you can teach critical thinking up to a certain level and then you hit a wall. In other words you cannot teach intelligence. At most you can make a kid reach his full potential.
    What’s the point of teaching stuff to kids who don’t have reading comprehension. Interesting. It’s easy to make kids parrot words, but without interest, where is the comprehension? I’d say that your comprehension demands towards kids are screwed up because you are asking adult level comprehension levels out of children who aren’t there yet developmentally.
    I love your hidden stinger, well done. I agree with you regarding comprehension. Last school year my grandson did 2nd grade at home. He was taught by my daughter who hired an online reading specialist not so much to learn how to read but to make my grandson understand the written words.
    Why some East Asians do so well and figure out how to do that with failing Americans. This warrants its own point. First Asians generally have excellent computation skills and generally poor problem solving skills in relation.
    I agree, see above.
    There’s a long argument I could make, you wouldn’t listen anyway. Second, do you understand the pressure Asian parents put on their kids for success? Third, the suicide rates in most high performing Asian countries is horrific amongst students due to the pressure. Lastly, if you can’t hang, you are washed out. All you see are the high performers. The low performers are never publicly shown, and are generally washed out of their systems pretty quickly.
    I do not disagree. In Japan the cool kids are the ones that get good grades. In America getting good grades means the kid is not cool and a geek. Why not copy some of that culture? Not all of it, but the best bits. You are correct, there are individual East Asians with mediocre intelligence, but as a group they trend high.
    High end schools are simply the product of the environment and less about any actual teaching. Some of your better teachers as far as instruction work in lower performing schools.
    Sure, they tend to get good students that teach themselves.
    You make the money statement again. Ok listen. I’m maxed at my pay scale. I’m dang good at my job. My 23 year old daughter with her liberal arts degree makes more than I do. And her career is just starting. Mine is maxed, and I actually earn less each year due to insurance. So, you complain about money? Heck I could go to amazon, and wishing 2-3 years be making more than I do as a teacher. In places fast food managers make more than teachers. You demand good teaching, but you don’t want to pay for it.
    You are obviously a high school math teacher and it seems you teach trigonometry. You are STEM material and decided to be a math teacher. That is to be highly admired. Most people with your talent choose another field. The question that begs an answer is: Why a trigonometry teacher earns the same salary as a social studies teacher. In my book the math teacher should be paid much more as social studies teachers a re a dime a dozen.
     
    Sam: You always come up with great comments.

    Another insulting remark. You lack critical thinking analytical skills.
    Considering both of these are towards @samiam5211 , you're kind of all over the place there, @Paul .

    Are we trying to say that humans are so different from the rest of the animals on this planet that the females have, since we first as a species crawled out of a cave or were created by dirt, picked the smallest, weakest and most docile males to mate with?

    I don't get the push back on this basic fact. Why?
    And not following you here @Farb. The females of most species are larger than the males. In most - not all - mammals specifically, the males are larger than the females, but even then, sexual dimorphism in humans is pretty low compared to other species, and the sexual selection "It's because men fight and women like big men, innit," theory is really a pretty crude hypothesis, with plenty of obvious problems, since it discounts things like the effects of food availability and efficiency that relates to size (bigger is often not better), not to mention any consideration at all of women; it's assuming men are bigger because of factors relating to men, it doesn't consider that women may be smaller because of factors relating to women, like the effect of reproductivity on the size of women, for example the effects of estrogen on skeletal growth, which is turn affected by the timing of the onset of puberty, etc., etc., etc.
     
    The problem is that educators are not doing the job. They have provided no results despite massive increases in the education budget.

    5bacee0325000036003753a1.jpeg


    I agree 100%. My daughters homeschooled last year for grades K, 1,2. No parent should home school their kids for calculus, I agree.

    If you know indian chief SOHCAHTOA there is no problem bro.

    OK, we know you know high school math. Somew people graduating from inner city schools these days cannot read or pass a basic arithmetic test. What is your point?


    OK, those that major in liberal arts are not in the same universe as STEM types. Nothing new here.

    What is the point of teaching philosophy or critical thinking to kids that do not have reading comprehension?

    I think teachers should try to figure out why some East Asian students do so well academically and try to instill that culture into failing American children. Why not?

    I am a grandpa but I still work full time. I will retire in a year but I will dedicate the time to improve my grandchildren.

    Educators have failed very badly, so trying new ideas should not be a surprise. A high end school is what people ask for all the time. They always scream for more money. I say give them the high end school, but let's provide room and board to the children from awful homes.

    What is the point of teaching reasoning and critical thinking when the kids do not know the basics?
    I'll come back to this later, but I feel like you're missing my point.

    Are you trying to change / fix the US education system for those that struggle or everyone?

    Are STEM fields the only ones you value?

    Most parents are ill equipped to teach their children past the age of 10-12. So, the threat of homeschooling is weak. Also, it would moat likely lead to far worse educational outcomes.

    What are you basing the "lack of reading comprehension" on? Test scores? What age groups? Is that cost chart tracking testing by age groups and money spent per age group? Money to teachers? Money to computers and infrastructure? Fixing the roof?

    Lots of things schools have to pay for that are more expensive now that has nothing to do with educational outcomes.

    What makes you feel equipped to tackle this problem or that your prescriptions are any good?
     
    I'll come back to this later, but I feel like you're missing my point.

    Are you trying to change / fix the US education system for those that struggle or everyone?
    How many of you guys are school teachers? I think I confused you with another poster who also teaches.
    Are you the trigonometry teacher?

    The system is broken for those that struggle and those in the middle. The smart kids likely score as well as any other international student.
    I would do as the Germans and Japanese. At some point some kids would be directed to practical careers that do not require a formal college education. The others would receive a college prep education. Ultimately I worry about the education gap and how it generates a gap inn income. At the same time we are creating an oligarchy of super talented that go to Ivy League schools where they married others Ivy Leagues and continue to procreate an elite class. It is no accident that all the children of Al Gore went to Harvard.
    Are STEM fields the only ones you value?
    The STEM field is fertile with job opportunities. The liberal arts are fine for those that have no science and math ability. Some technical jobs that are mostly on the job training still prefer college graduates. You also have the truly gifted that can excel in any field (STEM or not) because they are super smart.
    Most parents are ill equipped to teach their children past the age of 10-12. So, the threat of homeschooling is weak. Also, it would moat likely lead to far worse educational outcomes.
    I agree. My daughters only did it for a year and it was hard work to teach grades K-1-2.
    What are you basing the "lack of reading comprehension" on? Test scores? What age groups? Is that cost chart tracking testing by age groups and money spent per age group? Money to teachers? Money to computers and infrastructure? Fixing the roof?

    Lots of things schools have to pay for that are more expensive now that has nothing to do with educational outcomes.

    What makes you feel equipped to tackle this problem or that your prescriptions are any good?
    I am simply looking at what works. It is clear that kids form great homes do better, Why not tackle the home environment?
    1502299683.png


    9780231149488.jpg
     
    You use insulting racist remarks to hide your lack of knowledge.

    I have some time. I'll expand...

    For starters, "Latin American" is not a race.

    Now, your statement:
    Humans have sexual dimorphism and hence the female and male are not different.
    Or are they? :hihi:

    The dimorphism had to do with males battling each other for the privilege of mating with the awaiting female. The strongest, largest, and most most aggressive were naturally selected to pass their DNA. The weak small ones did not get to pass much DNA. That is why on the average men are larger, stronger, and more aggressive than women.

    Sure, the evolutionary process has a hand in sexual dimorphism. However, you don't seem to understand the evolutionary process at all (you seem to be stuck in the "survival of the fittest" misconception), or what is it that makes men larger and stronger than women in humans (although I'll give you points for referencing DNA); then you go and compound that with dismissing social constructs in the evolutionary process:
    OK. you are looking at this as a social construct and ignore the biology of evolution.

    Sexual dimorphism is present in most living creatures, but it is not uniform. Males are not always the strongest, largest, or most aggressive in many species: lionesses are the primary hunters of the pride; female black widow spiders are much larger and stronger than the males; the eclectus parrot female is much more colorful than its male counterpart; and good luck trying to distinguish a male and female dolphin without looking at their reproductive organs.

    So, even if I were to accept your misguided evolutionary premise, you'd still be wrong in that it is the cause of males being stronger, larger, more aggressive than females.

    And the social construct has plenty to do with the evolutionary process. Species live in many different social constructs: some are loners, some run in packs, some establish colonies, some are polygamous, some are monogamous; some species the males take care of raising the offspring... all of those factors have an effect in evolution.

    And like I said, I give you points for referring to DNA, because within DNA, you'll find chromosomes, and one of those chromosomes gives a person a higher metabolic rate and a higher rate of testosterone production than another person without it, which are what make males of the human species bigger, stronger, more aggressive than their female counterparts, even if their parents are small and weak.
     
    Considering both of these are towards @samiam5211 , you're kind of all over the place there, @Paul .


    And not following you here @Farb. The females of most species are larger than the males. In most - not all - mammals specifically, the males are larger than the females, but even then, sexual dimorphism in humans is pretty low compared to other species, and the sexual selection "It's because men fight and women like big men, innit," theory is really a pretty crude hypothesis, with plenty of obvious problems, since it discounts things like the effects of food availability and efficiency that relates to size (bigger is often not better), not to mention any consideration at all of women; it's assuming men are bigger because of factors relating to men, it doesn't consider that women may be smaller because of factors relating to women, like the effect of reproductivity on the size of women, for example the effects of estrogen on skeletal growth, which is turn affected by the timing of the onset of puberty, etc., etc., etc.
    Yeah, biology is tricky, pick up a copy of playboy and playgirl and tell me what you find.

    ETA: I don't even know if playboy and playgirl are still around. I have neve opened a playgirl so I have no idea if they have pictures of a Sheldon looking dude seductively at his computer or doing a tricky math problem but I feel they will lean more toward the Brad Pitt with abs on horse back, but I might be mistaken. Playboy, I am pretty certain they don't have a Julia Childs looking lady making a cheesecake either. Now a Jennifer Anniston looking lady making a cheesecake, now you are on to something.
     
    Last edited:
    Yeah, biology is tricky, pick up a copy of playboy and playgirl and tell me what you find.
    You appear to be going on a binge of posting aggressive and confrontational posts that frankly don't make a lot of sense. Are you OK @Farb?
     
    You appear to be going on a binge of posting aggressive and confrontational posts that frankly don't make a lot of sense. Are you OK @Farb?
    Thanks man, your fake concern is noted and appreciated. I did not mean to make this in an Alpha vs. Beta male thing, so I apologize if I was aggressive and confrontational to you. I am just trying to find a lady on here.
     
    Thanks man, your fake concern is noted and appreciated. I did not mean to make this in an Alpha vs. Beta male thing, so I apologize if I was aggressive and confrontational to you. I am just trying to find a lady on here.
    It's sincere, actually. You've just made like a dozen posts, dropping links with short comments that seem partisan to the point of trying to start fights, or responses like the one above that just ignore the content of the post they're replying to.

    While, sure, you're often argumentative, you don't normally act that much like a troll, hence why I was asking if you're OK.
     
    I agree about false equivalency.

    I disagree with the rest.

    That's akin to saying that math or science (my two best subjects) are more valuable than philosophy, social science history, govermnent/civics, etc.

    It's important we teach advanced scientific courses, and the math associated with them, but it's also important to teach people to think and be more well rounded people.

    Religious studies, done correctly, teach us to be more conscientious, kind, considerate, giving, and rooted in community. It is not necessary to be taught about 'doing the right thing', but I'd say if I weren't raised catholic, attended k-6 catholic school, then public. Did my Sunday school studies for confirmation, etc. I may not have the same moral grounding and self identity that I do.

    It also allows me to argue against BS religious points. It allows us to tap into a common morality at times. Less so lately, with so many non denominational evangelical groups and 'heretical' Christians who don't really follow anything, just believe whatever they feel like. But I digress.

    Music, art, dance, drama, literature, philosophy, and even religion, deserves time dedicated just like math and science, for more well rounded, educated students.

    You can teach those things independent of (the baggage) religion. I didn't mean to suggest those subjects are less important than the sciences.
     
    I have some time. I'll expand...

    For starters, "Latin American" is not a race.

    Now, your statement:

    Or are they? :hihi:



    Sure, the evolutionary process has a hand in sexual dimorphism. However, you don't seem to understand the evolutionary process at all (you seem to be stuck in the "survival of the fittest" misconception), or what is it that makes men larger and stronger than women in humans (although I'll give you points for referencing DNA); then you go and compound that with dismissing social constructs in the evolutionary process:


    Sexual dimorphism is present in most living creatures, but it is not uniform. Males are not always the strongest, largest, or most aggressive in many species: lionesses are the primary hunters of the pride; female black widow spiders are much larger and stronger than the males; the eclectus parrot female is much more colorful than its male counterpart; and good luck trying to distinguish a male and female dolphin without looking at their reproductive organs.
    I give you credit for googling the info and learning something new. Congratulations!
    I do not give you credit for pretending you always knew this.
    So, even if I were to accept your misguided evolutionary premise, you'd still be wrong in that it is the cause of males being stronger, larger, more aggressive than females.
    The cause is complex and due to multiple evolutionary forces. However, some men get to pass more DNA than others.

    Female reproduction is primarily limited by their access to resources to nourish and produce these large gametes, whereas male reproduction is mainly limited by access to females (Bateman 1948). Therefore males typically compete among themselves for access to females, whereas females tend to be choosy and mate only with preferred males.

    Male–male competition for females has led to the evolution of a diverse array of sexually dimorphic traits which may be advantageous to males.

    Darwin (1) argued convincingly that male combat and female mate choice were the contexts in which sexual differences appeared. Yet Darwin observed too that sexual selection “depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between males for possession of the females; the result is not death of the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring.

    Darwin


    And the social construct has plenty to do with the evolutionary process. Species live in many different social constructs: some are loners, some run in packs, some establish colonies, some are polygamous, some are monogamous; some species the males take care of raising the offspring... all of those factors have an effect in evolution.
    Some men have greater access to women for intercourse than others (INCELS). Women decide who gets to have intercourse. It is what it is and it has profound implications in evolution.
    And like I said, I give you points for referring to DNA, because within DNA, you'll find chromosomes, and one of those chromosomes gives a person a higher metabolic rate and a higher rate of testosterone production than another person without it, which are what make males of the human species bigger, stronger, more aggressive than their female counterparts, even if their parents are small and weak.

    The biochemical and physiological explanations for dimorphism are likely in the DNA. I agree. The question is why it happens. BTW, as you pointed out after you googled the subject in some species the female is larger. The male spiders live in a matriarchy that is based on biology and not a social construct.
     
    It's sincere, actually. You've just made like a dozen posts, dropping links with short comments that seem partisan to the point of trying to start fights, or responses like the one above that just ignore the content of the post they're replying to.

    While, sure, you're often argumentative, you don't normally act that much like a troll, hence why I was asking if you're OK.
    I am fine. Again, thanks.
    There is a lot going on in the world that interests me and I am a giver by nature so I like to share.
    You know what they say, 'don't feed the trolls'. I would recommend that advice so we don't 'start fights'.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom