Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting discussion I had last night with a friend, and it went something like this:
"High school, " he said, "is the only place in life where someone is expected to be good at everything. Think about it. Primary school you learn to read and write and do some basic math enough to pass those stupid new tests, and you're through. College you get to pick a major. Graduate school, you get to specialize in a profession. And at your job, you need to know how to do your job.
But high schoolers are expected to be good at math, English, science, writing, history, and maybe even something in the arts, in order to graduate. That's why kids hate high schools. Everyplace else education plays to your strengths. In high school, you're penalized for your weaknesses. Sure there are kids who are good at everything, but why should they have to be? Once you're an adult NOBODY is good at everything. They get to choose."
That was his argument as best as I can reconstruct it. I think he's right, actually. But I can't quite figure out if there is anything that can, or should, be done about it. Do you agree with him or not?
Is that a joke? Good at everything? Most high schoolers have at least one or two omnipotent adults they can immediately appeal to if things go sideways; is this kid pretending that there isn't a huge infrastructure, plainly visible to everyone else, propping up his very material existence? Good at everything? I can tell you this, he's very good at myopia.
Remind the High Schooler that his first two years of undergrad will a rehash of what he already learned in HS. More English, more Science, more Math, etc.
The point is not to be good at everything, proficiency is the key. Well roundedness is the key. Building a base is the key. If you don't have a solid base from high school you'll struggle in undergrad and fail in graduate school.
In high school you barely touch the surface on each of those subjects. What you are required to learn in high school pales in comparison to what it takes to make out in the real world.
Interesting discussion I had last night with a friend, and it went something like this:
"High school, " he said, "is the only place in life where someone is expected to be good at everything. Think about it. Primary school you learn to read and write and do some basic math enough to pass those stupid new tests, and you're through. College you get to pick a major. Graduate school, you get to specialize in a profession. And at your job, you need to know how to do your job.
But high schoolers are expected to be good at math, English, science, writing, history, and maybe even something in the arts, in order to graduate. That's why kids hate high schools. Everyplace else education plays to your strengths. In high school, you're penalized for your weaknesses. Sure there are kids who are good at everything, but why should they have to be? Once you're an adult NOBODY is good at everything. They get to choose."
That was his argument as best as I can reconstruct it. I think he's right, actually. But I can't quite figure out if there is anything that can, or should, be done about it. Do you agree with him or not?
Because they are competing globally now with strivers who want X more than they do.
I actually agree with this.
I abhored high school. I'm a complete right-brained, arts and language person. I despise math and am horrible at it. Even more though, I despised being pressured, having to sit through class, having to do homework every single day. Once I got to senior year where I could finally drop math and take the classes I was good at, my average shot from a C+ to an A. I went on to get a BA in communications and LOVED university, loved that I could focus only on what I was good at, loved that there was no one riding me to do things, it was up to me to plan my time and responsibility and that's how I like it. I graduated with a 3.9 GPA effortlessly, while in HS I came close to failing on occasion. In fact I did fail gym - and dont even get me started on that, a skinny geeky weak shy girl who was terrified of the ball, of falling, of getting hurt, and was the laughing stock of every gym class. If it wasn't for my lovely dr Who gave me a note allowing me to spend the stay-back year by doing gym-themed written projects due to a medical excuse, I may still have been there 12 years later trying to pass it. I say we need to give our high schoolers morE perSonal responsibility and accountability and empower them to make choices, not cram stuff down their throats that they will never need or use
Well, they don't have to be "good" at everything. They can still get a D in most subjects and still graduate. What is important is that they are learning and expanding their minds--physically.
Now, there certainly is an undercurrent that if you don't have a 4.0 and perfect ACT/SAT scores that you are doomed to flip burgers for the rest of your life, but that is more a parenting thing than a kid thing.
I actually agree with this.
I abhored high school. I'm a complete right-brained, arts and language person. I despise math and am horrible at it. Even more though, I despised being pressured, having to sit through class, having to do homework every single day. Once I got to senior year where I could finally drop math and take the classes I was good at, my average shot from a C+ to an A. I went on to get a BA in communications and LOVED university, loved that I could focus only on what I was good at, loved that there was no one riding me to do things, it was up to me to plan my time and responsibility and that's how I like it. I graduated with a 3.9 GPA effortlessly, while in HS I came close to failing on occasion. In fact I did fail gym - and dont even get me started on that, a skinny geeky weak shy girl who was terrified of the ball, of falling, of getting hurt, and was the laughing stock of every gym class. If it wasn't for my lovely dr Who gave me a note allowing me to spend the stay-back year by doing gym-themed written projects due to a medical excuse, I may still have been there 12 years later trying to pass it. I say we need to give our high schoolers morE perSonal responsibility and accountability and empower them to make choices, not cram stuff down their throats that they will never need or use
FWIW, my husband says the exact same thing about his HS experience - except for him it was the opposite, he was fantastic at math and sciences and hated having to do English lit analysis. Did it really help him achieve anything? Nope. He spent most of HS slacking off and doing bare minimum in the subjects he hated. He's now a senior engineer at one of the world's leading IT companies.
I think part of the problem is everything is becoming way too structured, and kids being forced too wide a variety of classes. At a high school in my area, you are required to take four years of math. You are required to take four years of language. There is global course you are required to take your senior year instead of history. And just a couple years ago they decided to require you to four semesters of an art (photography, studio art, acting, technical theater, chorus, band, etc.). They tell students if they don't take four years of language and science, colleges will "look down" upon you.
I think this is a ridiculous to have this many standards in a school. I agree that you should take your core classes for three years, but if you don't want to take math senior year, and would rather focus on English? That's fine with me. And don't even start me with this ridiculous art credit. I think that local high school has it completely wrong with that. A lot of schools cannot do tech theater or act to save their lives, but those classes will now be effecting where they go to college? I think we have gone too far to get the "well rounded" student.
Think about it, what if your employer told you that your ability to draw would factor into your job review because he/she wants "well rounded" employees! How would you feel?
Well, they don't have to be "good" at everything. They can still get a D in most subjects and still graduate. What is important is that they are learning and expanding their minds--physically.
Now, there certainly is an undercurrent that if you don't have a 4.0 and perfect ACT/SAT scores that you are doomed to flip burgers for the rest of your life, but that is more a parenting thing than a kid thing.
You can still graduate, but you won't be able to get into college, because your GPA will be terrible.
Colleges look at grade averages for all subjects - so if you want to major in English Lit, your math and science, etc grades will matter just as much as English when it comes to applying. Which is entirely silly.
I actually don't know how it works in US schools - I went to school in Canada and they actually tried to do that somewhat right there; you had to take PE and art through grade 10 only (in 11 and 12 you could choose between arts and an applied craft/trade I think), math through grade 11, and your choice of science and social studies in grades 11 and 12. Plus they had more electives to choose from. So my senior year was something like: English, English Lit, French, Geography, Biology, Art, and Law. That was the first year I actually did great, because I didn't need to worry about math and physics/chemistry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
