The Education System

[whatty]

I'm not sure what the story is in America, but I am sure that it is based purely on memory.

The Irish method of education is based on 3 levels. Primary, Secondary and then College - university.
It is everyone of my friends wishes to get into college. Mainly because of the college life and all the college opportunities. But in order to get into this system you have to undergo a massive memory test.

The secondary test is based on 6 subjects of choice. You can choose from these subjects:

* Irish
* English
* Mathematics
* Applied Mathematics
* History
* Geography
* Latin
* Greek
* Classical studies
* French
* German
* Spanish
* Italian
* Physics
* Chemistry
* Physics and Chemistry
* Agricultural Science
* Biology
* Agricultural Economics
* Engineering
* Technical Drawing
* Technology
* Construction Studies
* Home Economics
* Music
* Art (including crafts)
* Accounting
* Business
* Economics
* Design and Communication Graphics
* Religious Education
* Hebrew Studies
* Arabic
* Japanese
* Russian

Each subject you pick will give you 100 points if you achieve the top grade (A1), and 90 points for an A2, and B1 will get you 85 points and so on.

All the interesting courses like Film, TV production, and all these other brilliant courses are out of my reach. It sucks beyond belief.

How can a society build its professional classes from a memory test? Every subject, no matter how uniteresting it is, holds the same. I can't understand it. If someone has the potential to become a great TV producer, but has a crap memory, he can't achieve his potential. This is the same for many subjects.

Can you think of a better way than this memory test on a way to check someones aptitudes in other aspects. Yes. They're called DATs. A general aptitude test that shows in detail someones qualities in a intellectual aspect, but will it surfice for the education system?

It has to be a memory test. Please discuss, It has me driving up the wall!

[Al6200]

The American system doesn't force you to specialize into a specific field until your second year of college - and I think it's a better system.

The basic jist of our education plan for college-bound students is:

1. SAT Reasoning Test

Long, 10 hour test, takes old formulas like A = pi * r^2 and puts them in unique situation. Kind of difficult, designed to test reasoning ability - although it seems like you can study for them and do somewhat better.

2. SAT Subject Test

For elite colleges (only a handful), you have to take Subject Tests in Math, Physics, Chemistry, Literature, etc. I pwned the Subject Math one, while I was sort of disappointed on how I did on the Math from the SAT reasoning.

3. AP Tests

You take an AP class and there's a corresponding test. You technically don't need to do well on them to get into college, but I generally see that people who do well on them tend to get into higher schools.

[Slizor]

Can you think of a better way than this memory test on a way to check someones aptitudes in other aspects. Yes. They're called DATs. A general aptitude test that shows in detail someones qualities in a intellectual aspect, but will it surfice for the education system?

It has to be a memory test. Please discuss, It has me driving up the wall!

I had a quick look on google and the Irish system looks very similar to the English system (although at 18 we only do three subjects.) Based on this, I disagree with your view that the exams are "memory tests". While I accept that a large part of the marking is about having remembered certain facts, the other part is based on your analysis and use of the facts (and, in a number of subjects, writing style.) For example, maths exams that involve memorised formula/methods still require you to understand (based on your analysis) which formula/method to apply to which question.

And then there is also the part of your grade that is made up by coursework.

As for IQ tests, I don't think they would be a good idea. This is because they don't reward hard work and effort, just natural abilities. I know that if IQ tests were how they decided grades/whatever that I would have done even less work at school and got a better result in the end - clever people who tend towards being lazy are not pushed at all and can breeze through, whereas hard-working people of normal intelligence are not rewarded.

[whatty]

At 3/27/08 07:54 AM, Slizor wrote:

And then there is also the part of your grade that is made up by coursework.

As for IQ tests, I don't think they would be a good idea. This is because they don't reward hard work and effort, just natural abilities. I know that if IQ tests were how they decided grades/whatever that I would have done even less work at school and got a better result in the end - clever people who tend towards being lazy are not pushed at all and can breeze through, whereas hard-working people of normal intelligence are not rewarded.

Ok, you are right about some things, like the fact that maths is a subject that requires more than memory. But for half of my points; Geography, Biology and economics, it's all memory. There is little to understand.

I know that coming from a 18 year old know it all, it doesn't sound like a plausible fault. But infact the idea was placed in my head by what a teacher said to me "This leaving cert business is a matter of memory,"

There is very little to understand about subject like these. History: All you need is a good writing mind, but the rest is honest to god memory. Maybe memory is the best form of intelligence. I just think the system is unfair.

[CogSpin]

It's not the American education system that makes Americans stupid.

It's the flouridated water supply and crappy food that they feed you. When your body consists of 70% water, contaminated water with all kinds of hidden drugs in it WILL FUCK WITH YOU.

The stupid education and media just facilitates the idiocy. Think about it. If Americans were smart, they'd get 100% in all the tests and thus the tests would have to made more difficult. Education simply decides who's smart, who's average, and who's stupid.

[Elfer]

Can you give an example of how these are "memory tests"?

Some of them, like math, physics, and chemistry, don't seem like they'd be toot axing on memory, more on reasoning abilities.

[Slizor]

There is very little to understand about subject like these. History: All you need is a good writing mind, but the rest is honest to god memory.

I'll agree with you on biology, economics and geography (particularly economics), but history? History is about creating a narrative - about connecting the dots. You do require a fair amount of memory, but its based more on the creation of a good argument. Half the "debates" on this forum are about conflicting views of history and historical events.

[ONIRWML]

Are you saying memory like... facts? Or something that was taught in lets say, 6th grade? Because if its facts from highschool it couldn't be that hard to write down your notes then just skim over them real quick. Thats what I do. I usually get pretty good grades on final exams. Idk though..

[TheMason]

At 3/27/08 06:13 AM, Al6200 wrote: The basic jist of our education plan for college-bound students is:

1. SAT Reasoning Test

2. SAT Subject Test

3. AP Tests

There's also great diversity in the path to an American college education. In some states you don't take the SAT you take the ACT (which I think is better).

Furthermore, increasingly college admissions here take a "whole person" concept in which your ACT/SAT scores and GPA (Grade Point Average) is only a part of what gets you into college. Just about all colleges want to see community service. They also look at what talents/skills you have. Have you overcome adversity (racism, poverty, abuse, etc)? If you're older than 18 what life experiences have you had?

I like the American way of higher education. You, the individual, are free to choose your path once you graduate High School. It may be expensive, but we have ways to help students with this cost (I think today's concern over education cost is just plain silly). Unlike the European system where student's are funneled onto an educational/career path at a young age.

[Al6200]

At 3/27/08 01:49 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/27/08 06:13 AM, Al6200 wrote: The basic jist of our education plan for college-bound students is:

1. SAT Reasoning Test

2. SAT Subject Test

3. AP Tests

There's also great diversity in the path to an American college education. In some states you don't take the SAT you take the ACT (which I think is better).

I think SAT > ACT. I only took SAT, so I can't say for sure though... We also have the IB as a substitute for the AP. There are no substitutes for the Subject Tests though.

I agree with your point about diversity though. I much prefer the private collegeboard over any sort of government-imposed exam. Competition and freedom are good things - also - I can't imagine how much liberals would screw up our meritocracy to make things look equal if they had the ability to control testing standards.

Furthermore, increasingly college admissions here take a "whole person" concept in which your ACT/SAT scores and GPA (Grade Point Average) is only a part of what gets you into college.

They say that. But the correlations with GPA and SAT are so huge, that someone with a 4.0 and a 2300+ is very likely to get in, while someone with an SAT under 1800 almost never gets in to an elite college (there are the stories though).

Just about all colleges want to see community service. They also look at what talents/skills you have. Have you overcome adversity (racism, poverty, abuse, etc)? If you're older than 18 what life experiences have you had?

Yeah, for my Johns Hopkins University application I sent in some tutorials that I had made in Flash. I really like the idea of having students submit portfolios of old work, although I think it might end up being unfair to disadvantaged students.

I like the American way of higher education. You, the individual, are free to choose your path once you graduate High School. It may be expensive, but we have ways to help students with this cost (I think today's concern over education cost is just plain silly). Unlike the European system where student's are funneled onto an educational/career path at a young age.

Yeah, I think the cost is definitely manageable for good students, in all income ranges.

And while I agree with you that our system is better than the European one, I think that a universal 2-year educational voucher for post-secondary education is a good idea.

[TheMason]

At 3/27/08 03:29 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 3/27/08 01:49 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/27/08 06:13 AM, Al6200 wrote:

I think SAT > ACT. I only took SAT, so I can't say for sure though... We also have the IB as a substitute for the AP. There are no substitutes for the Subject Tests though.

I think the SAT is more prestigious than the ACT. However, if you went to a school in an area where only the ACT was offered (like me); it's not held against you.

They say that. But the correlations with GPA and SAT are so huge, that someone with a 4.0 and a 2300+ is very likely to get in, while someone with an SAT under 1800 almost never gets in to an elite college (there are the stories though).

Good point. However, in many ways "elite schools" are not really worth it. I went to a private Jesuit school that's highly regarded in my area. However, I finished undergrad at the U of S. Carolina. I got a better education at the public school than I did at the more "elite" private school. I wish I could remember where I saw the study, but the results indicate that the benefits of a Harvard or Yale education may not be worth the extra cost.

Yeah, for my Johns Hopkins University application I sent in some tutorials that I had made in Flash. I really like the idea of having students submit portfolios of old work, although I think it might end up being unfair to disadvantaged students.

Well it doesn't have to be technical. What really made me an attractive candidate to my program was my military service and that I was older than the other candidates. Same with two of my collegues; one is an Army Captain and the other has his Masters in Comm and taught & coached debate on the collegiate level.

I guess my point is many of these schools do have some mechanism for determining outstanding community service and apptitude based upon extenuating circumstances such as being from a poor rural or urban setting.

Now are you in Johns Hopkins or are you still in HS waiting for acceptance?
::

And while I agree with you that our system is better than the European one, I think that a universal 2-year educational voucher for post-secondary education is a good idea.

I would be for this if were limited to Junior College tuition, or at least the cost thereof.

[Al6200]

At 3/27/08 03:56 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/27/08 03:29 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 3/27/08 01:49 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/27/08 06:13 AM, Al6200 wrote:

I think SAT > ACT. I only took SAT, so I can't say for sure though... We also have the IB as a substitute for the AP. There are no substitutes for the Subject Tests though.

I think the SAT is more prestigious than the ACT. However, if you went to a school in an area where only the ACT was offered (like me); it's not held against you.

Yeah, they hold them equally. And honestly they're very similar tests.

They say that. But the correlations with GPA and SAT are so huge, that someone with a 4.0 and a 2300+ is very likely to get in, while someone with an SAT under 1800 almost never gets in to an elite college (there are the stories though).

Good point. However, in many ways "elite schools" are not really worth it. I went to a private Jesuit school that's highly regarded in my area. However, I finished undergrad at the U of S. Carolina. I got a better education at the public school than I did at the more "elite" private school. I wish I could remember where I saw the study, but the results indicate that the benefits of a Harvard or Yale education may not be worth the extra cost.

Harvard and Yale are actually pretty cheap, since they have enormous financial resources (read, tens of billions of dollars), and can therefore provide sufficient financial aid.

I guess my point is many of these schools do have some mechanism for determining outstanding community service and apptitude based upon extenuating circumstances such as being from a poor rural or urban setting.

Yeah. Most colleges will consider income and circumstance into their decisions. In fact, nearly all of the selective schools have "Holistic" admissions, meaning that anything and everything they know about will be used in the decision, with no weighting process or criteria.

To me this is irksome since it totally sidesteps accountability for their decisions. Since there's no hard criteria, it's hard to really discuss issues like affirmative action or advantages to athletes in a meaningful way.

Now are you in Johns Hopkins or are you still in HS waiting for acceptance?

Waiting. Should come in the mail this (or next) week though. If I don't get into Hopkins my next choice is Carnegie Mellon, after that the Rochester Institute of Technology.

I'm planning on majoring in Engineering - maybe physics or math. Mathematical biology (neural networks, evolutionary dynamics, population differential equations) is really what's piquing my interest currently.

And while I agree with you that our system is better than the European one, I think that a universal 2-year educational voucher for post-secondary education is a good idea.

I would be for this if were limited to Junior College tuition, or at least the cost thereof.

Ideally, I would support a 4-year voucher that covers full-time Junior College tuition.

[Doublelinked]

Not all universities in the U.S. require high SAT or ACT scores in fact the one I'm in let basically anyone in and it's not bad at all. General education degrees that come from in hold a lot of weight. It's also known for being very "disabled friendly" and it seems people have said it has a good computer science program which I'm in but I've only heard that once. (Also have heard it was one of the most STD prominent campuses in America but I don't know if thats true.)

The reason I go to it is because I don't have to pay tuition because my father worked there. (I'm cheap.)
But I don't think the SAT is based on memory at all just the knowledge to know what math formula you need in certain situation which they give you the formula's at the front of the booklet. Thats for math.
For English it could be considered memory if you just crammed sentence structure into your head the night before.
But if you had the English for the years you were supposed to it shouldn't have been hard to know nouns verbs and other pieces of sentences. The other part is vocabulary the more words you knew the better off you were.

This was a year ago so it was also when they introduced essay questions which you didn't know what your essay was going to have to be about so you could have gotten a very easy topic or one that you had no previous insight on the topic before hand and were expected to give your opinion on it and other readings that support your ideas. Which basically screws you over if you haven't read something about every thing conceivable.

The rest is an unnecessary story that basically goes astray. Yeah I get off topic a little lol.

Which I didn't get the benefit from 6th through 9th grade English because I got kicked out in 6th grade to 7th for being to mean or something I'm still not sure to this day. I came back in 7th and during 7th and 8th they gave me a book and set me aside in the emotional support room without a teacher and expected me to get something from it. In 9th I got sent away for saying "to kill all the teachers" in my defense I was set up and when I came back someone else said basically the same thing and nothing happened to them. I graduated on time but I was always weaker in English then other subject and this happening didn't help that. I still got a good score On the SAT's for only taking them once and not having taken trig or calc when taking them

[Slizor]

I'm not sure about most else that you guys have been discussing (as in, my mind is not made up on the issue) but i certainly think the British/European way of specific degrees is better than the major/minor system. I got the latitude of the US system in my first year (when it counted for very little) and then the depth of the British system in the past few years. I haven't "majored" in politics, I've just studied it, and only it, for the past three years. I don't want to fuck around with other subjects (except related ones that we kinda cover anyway.)

I supose its a bit different when you haven't been chopping down subjects since you were 16. I mean, I studied Politics, Philosophy and (Modern American and British) History between 16-18.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Shouldn't it be the individual to determine what to take for thier career and not some test or government agency?

[Al6200]

At 3/27/08 10:33 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Shouldn't it be the individual to determine what to take for thier career and not some test or government agency?

Well, let's say you want to be a doctor. Of course, that's a choice all to yourself - but medical schools do have a choice as to whether they accept you or not. And if you can't get into medical school because of test scores - you can't be a doctor.

[xcs-the-mad-fan]

Singapore does it the British way. With GCSE O levels & A levels. The only difference i see is you get more choices and harder marking scheme.

[Shaggytheclown17]

Yeah it is a stupid memory test, the thing I heard about school is that it isn't meant to teach anything but obeying higher authority, a teacher tells u to read they expect u to read n all that shit.
It is fucked up how people have to memorize shit they will probably never ruse in life, my idea is this.

Have a school where you choose wtf you learn, no shitty homework, just all out studying and learing, then when the time comes they leave school, they get a job that requires the knowledge that they learned, then if that person just slaked off n did nothing that whole time, they will be fired n will have to go back to school n learn something to get them a job they can actually do.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 3/28/08 06:16 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 3/27/08 10:33 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Well, let's say you want to be a doctor. Of course, that's a choice all to yourself - but medical schools do have a choice as to whether they accept you or not. And if you can't get into medical school because of test scores - you can't be a doctor.

Of course, thats a given.

I was meaning more along the lines of not having government subsidized testing to determine where your going and what your doing and choosing for yourself and what you can afford.

If you wished to be a doctor, but didn't do a thing about it.
You weren't really choosing your life for yourself.

[Al6200]

Now are you in Johns Hopkins or are you still in HS waiting for acceptance?

I actually got an e-mail today that I got wait-listed. I'll probably accept my offer at RIT in the meantime.