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.
It's quite astonishing how many posters in this thread apparently value only that from which they can draw a straight line to some kind of vocation. Apparently the "soft" stuff isn't valued greatly, though that's the same stuff that teaches you how to think, to reason, to make decisions or to expand one's modes of thought. IOW, how to be a better human being. This outlook is actually very telling given the horrifying decline in the national discourse.
The probably is that what you refer to as "soft" stuff is poorly taught by teachers, who focus more on discipline and rote memorization, not critical thinking.
What so many fail to grasp is it's not about learning math they think they'll never use, but about learning how to think in a logical manner. Schools have failed at teaching how to think.
I agree but math isn't the only class that teaches that. Basically all core classes, including humanities, if taught right should teach and require logical thinking.
I had to take an art class in college (liberal arts, have to take it all) and it was actually incredibly calming to sit there and paint. It was an abstract art class, so basically most of the time we were free to draw shapes then paint them using various color schemes. It was nice to sit there and just mindlessly paint. I almost never use art skills, I'm not too good at art, but actually taking the class was a stress reliever, so it's interesting how in that sense it was "useful."
I have to mostly agree with this, the "useless" classes *could* be useful if taught in a different way. English was a bore and useless to me as it was taught, but, things like descriptive writing, how to write a proposal (huge), etc. are a big part of my job now and most all of the professional jobs I have done. Gym, first don't let a jock who loves football, baseball, whatever, teach it. If you want to offer a football class, do that if you can support it. But for most, just conditioning, running, weight lifting, etc. Or maybe a sport most people can do on a reasonable basis like tennis.
As I posted before, whether rightfully or wrongfully, the focus on team sports in gym class is to teach about teamwork and leadership, in addition to physical conditioning. Unfortunately, the fact that athletic ability is far from equal, causes the teamwork and leadership aspects to be completely lost for anyone with poor athletic ability. I have no athletic ability at all. In 6th grade gym class, when we played football, the captain of my team told me that my position is "Nothing back", which meant that my job was to stay as far away from the ball as possible, and to not interfere. That meant that it was a complete waste of time for me, since I gained neither the exercise, nor the leadership or teamwork skills.
Quote:
A foreign language can be huge, for almost all of the US, Spanish as a second language is useful, and not that hard to learn. The third, fourth, etc. languages come easier than the second. It's criminal to let high-IQ kids squirm their way through the first few grades, when they could easily learn a second language, without it (I did not learn a damn thing in the first three grades )
Same here. Elementary school is such a waste of time (at least from an academic point of view) for high achieving students, such schools do nothing to try to accommodate us.
Quote:
Likewise shop class could concentrate on home maintenance, and could be coupled with a program to have kids learn as they fix stuff on volunteer's homes out in the neighborhood (this would take some coordinating, but I imagine outfits like Habitat would be glad to help out).
I had to take an art class in college (liberal arts, have to take it all) and it was actually incredibly calming to sit there and paint. It was an abstract art class, so basically most of the time we were free to draw shapes then paint them using various color schemes. It was nice to sit there and just mindlessly paint. I almost never use art skills, I'm not too good at art, but actually taking the class was a stress reliever, so it's interesting how in that sense it was "useful."
I want to learn watercolor and impasto painting, now that I am only schooing two students I have more time to devote to a hobby. I've always been very creative and artistic.
I honestly don't think I had a single class that I would categorize as "useless". Even those where I haven't used a single iota of the things that I learned in them at least helped shape my perspective or relate to something that either made me try something else related later one (that I might have enjoyed!), or made more a more interesting to a prospective mate or employer. It's called being a well-rounded person, and I think there is definitely a lot of value in that whether most people think so or not.
The problem is (and I'll admit I'm talking more about college than high school here), taking a few token classes outside your major does not make you well-rounded. When I was an undergrad (not at MIT, despite what another poster said in a locked thread), STEM majors would take Music 101 to meet our fine arts requirement. That class was an total joke, easy A. Liberal arts majors would take Animal Science 101 to meet their science requirement. Part of the problem is, if you need a certain GPA to keep a scholarship, you are forced to take the easiest classes possible, especially outside of your major. A few joke classes outside your major does not make you well rounded.
I'd also agree that Studio Art - actually creating art, working with paint and clay, is only useful to people who want to pursue art on higher lever. And for students who are interested in seeing what creative art is all about. I also think that they should NOT be graded on their work. It should be offered "pass fair".
I agree, especially since it is so subjective. In reality, art class is not about true art, but just giving the teacher what he/she wants.
If an "engineer" bristles at having to diagram a sentence, how will he ever be able to design a bridge?
And just as an FYI, I took Probability & Statistics as a high school junior, concurrent with Calculus I. The latter as a pre-req for the former does not compute.
If an "engineer" bristles at having to diagram a sentence, how will he ever be able to design a bridge?
I'm not bristling at having to diagram a sentence. It was something that was never taught in my school, and I don't even know what it means (I should probably look it up online). But I would have likely preferred it over the garbage that we did do in English class. So you are wrong to accuse me of "bristling" at it.
Quote:
And just as an FYI, I took Probability & Statistics as a high school junior, concurrent with Calculus I. The latter as a pre-req for the former does not compute.
My high school didn't teach probability and statistics at all.
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.
)
