 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
The US college university system is decent
especially considering how lousy the public high school and elementary schools are
it needs fixed, but for costs it is a good basis
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
Most european university systems are undergoing some hefty changes, but there is no EU policy forced on them. I can tell from my own experience in Austria that most of it is coming from braindead national bureaucracies who wouldn't know a market if they were sold on it.
On the EU level, there is the Bologna process, but that one wouldn't stop a member state from enacting pinko lefty concepts at heart's desire. And the GATS thingie is pushed by some leftists, but I cannot ever see the provision that would require what they fear.
For the economic aspect of education - there's two sides to it. One is for the consumer, the other as an investment. On the investment side I do not see market mechanisms that could fully work, but I suppose that's for another debate.
Dan:
"A very high %-age of Americans go to university (the figure is something like 50% now, ~30% graduating). Those universities are high quality, even though they have to teach the average person."
I used to think only about 10 % of your tertiary education institutions are of high quality. But in the absence of a clear measure for that, wouldn't you agree that the differences in quality among those institutions are huge ?
Timexwatch:
"Does England or the EU have the same diversity in education as the U.S. in terms of the sheer number of choices among state, private and community colleges? PH is making it sound like the only worthwhile education that can be obtained is from expensive schools..."
Quite substantial differences from country to country. Most direct comparisons are pointless as for example in Austria, we have a specialisation in high school that is roughly what your college education is for you, and the tertiary sector is relatively small as a consequence. Most tertiary education is part of the public sector here, but comes in many forms... if you take interest-adjusted life income, there is not much difference between secondary and tertiary education overall (with a wild variation according to professions, naturally).
Giant_Squid:
"It's interesting to hear that the Euros are considering changing their system to try and offset a perceived US advantage..."
Well, while it is overhyped, there is a real weakness in most of our systems, and that is selection at the top. Most systems are set up for broad research and education, and doing that job quite well, but a couple of US style "we want a nobel prize - how much?" pools wouldn't exactly hurt us...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Roland
|
|
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sprayber
It seems that going on strike is becomming an EU passtime. The one thing that binds the continent together. 
One of these days the good ole EU higher ups will wise up and start cracking some heads when you guys go on strike.
|
Funny you should mention it. The NY Times education page has two top stories: a wage conflict with some teachers still on strike, and this jewel as an extra:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/education/index.html
quote:
Middletown and Its Schools on Edge After Bitter Strike
By ROBERT HANLEY
IDDLETOWN, N.J., Dec. 10 — As teachers returned to classrooms here after a weeklong strike and mass jailings, there were small attempts today to soothe the bitterness. In many of the schools, parent- teacher groups put out coffee and trays of cookies as a welcome-back gesture.
But emotions remained raw over the strike and the jailing of about 230 school employees — the nation's first widespread incarceration of striking teachers since the late 1970's. The contract dispute that led to the walkout remains unresolved, and anger persists on all sides as a new court- appointed mediator prepares to begin overseeing negotiations between the union and school board, perhaps later this week.
The teachers, secretaries and other union members agreed on Friday to return to classes without a contract, and all of those jailed were released. Today, the school's superintendent, Jack DeTalvo, said about 95 percent of the 1,000 union members had come to work for the first time since Nov. 28 — about normal attendance for a regular day.
Little else was normal. At Middletown North High School, Ryan Oswin, a senior and member of the wrestling team, said his math teacher started weeping as she discussed her time in jail, and had to leave the classroom twice. Another teacher, he said, became "really defensive" and started snapping at students. Yet another, he went on, said the jailhouse tedium of scrubbing toilets was humiliating.
Charles Best, an English teacher at Middletown North who was jailed with his wife, Lori, for three days, rejected his students' overtures to talk about his incarceration.
"We've already lost enough instruction time," he said. "We just picked up where we left off in November."
But another English teacher, Mel Clifford, said the resumption of classes was a traumatic moment for both students and teachers.
"There was a lot of nervous laughter from students and some jokes," Ms. Clifford said. "The students didn't know what to say to us. They were confused and didn't understand."
Ms. Clifford said that last week's anxieties persisted today for her and many of her colleagues, and that they returned to class feeling like the "walking wounded."
"If you weren't in jail last week, you felt guilty," she said. "If you were in jail, you felt scared. And I feel we've all taken so much abuse we didn't deserve from residents. This job is difficult enough without that."
Four teachers said during contempt hearings in State Superior Court last week that they were so weary of the history of friction between the union and the school board that they would resign or retire. But only one submitted the necessary paperwork today, said Britt Raynor, a Board of Education member.
The end of the strike does not seem to have eased the anger of many residents in this sprawling suburban school district — the largest in Monmouth County, with 10,500 students and 17 schools.
Some high school seniors grumbled about college applications piling up on guidance counselors' desks. Others complained about having to sacrifice Saturday mornings or vacation days later in the school year to make up for the seven school days canceled by the strike.
And many parents continued to denounce the teachers.
"I think it was a disgrace," Bill Brown, 46, said as he waited to pick up his daughter, a freshman, after classes ended at Middletown North. "I think they all should have lost their jobs. They hurt the kids is all they did. And for what?"
Diana Fallon, a mother of four grown children, called the timing of the strike "horrendous," noting that 34 of Middletown's 61,000 residents were killed in the terrorist attack at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. Since then, she said, other residents have lost their jobs in Manhattan's financial district or lost customary year-end financial bonuses.
"In light of all the losses people have suffered, they didn't have to do this now," Ms. Fallon said. "It's very divisive. You're either anti-teacher or pro-teacher. And people are worried now about their property values."
Ms. Fallon said she expected that many people would vote against a proposed $10.5 million bond issue in a special election on Tuesday because of resentment over the strike.
School officials say the money is needed to complete $75 million in renovations and additions started at the town's two high schools and three middle schools in the late 1990's.
Superintendent DeTalvo said that if voters did not approve the $10.5 million in new bonds, school officials would schedule another vote in January. |
You should shut up, sit down and learn a bit from us about labour relations. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roland
|
|
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
"By tertiary, do you mean undergraduate/graduate? If so, no I wouldn't agree, but right now I'm basing my opinion on anecdotal evidence and educated guesses."
Anything past highschool that offers some sort of degree. IIRC from a study a couple years ago, there are about 200 law schools in the US, of which something like 70 offer full degrees (would have to check what the exact difference was) and about 20 are attractive for foreign students. The ivy league schools may well be much overhyped, but there are also substantial differences in funding, faculty etc.
"You would think that there would be a large quality difference, but I have every reason to believe that my education was nearly as good as an education at Harvard, even though Harvard cost more."
Ever since a Harvard subdiv hired one guy as assistant prof we rejected here for total and utter incompetence, I'D urge you to question the "nearly".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
The folks I've met from Harvard have been competent and hard working. I would think that your experience is an outlyer. In fact, this seems to be the main difference between the top tier and lower schools. They are the smartest of the bunch, they get a quality education, and they work hard.
In most other schools, the education is quite similar (it's the same system after all). Just not all students are the smartest. Whether you get a good education seems to come down to how much effort you put into it. Effort makes up for smarts quite a bit.
Re the law schools, I don't think those are the best numbers to follow. Rather, I would look at the number of graduates in those top 20 programs. I would also think about considering the top 50 programs...
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/be...ank/gdlawnf.htm
Last edited by DanS on 11-12-2001 at 21:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
Consider this:
Earlier in the century, a high school degree meant something. If you graduated high school, that meant you were an intelligent and motivated person. You would probably be able to get a good job.
I know this because I have seen the tests they took. When I was a senior in high school, I would not have been able to pass the eighth grade entrance examination. Let me repeat that. Someone at the top of his high school class in 1998 could not have passed an eighth grade entrance examination from 1930.
This means that my high school education means less than a seventh grade education from 1930. The public schools wasted over five years of my life; they were not capable in thirteen years of bring me to the educational level of a seventh grader from earlier in the century.
In other words, we used to have a totally free educational system that guaraneed a good job for anyone who passed. Why? Because they failed the losers. Only the smart people could pass high school, so employers knew that a high school graduate was smart and motivated.
But then someone decided that more people should be able to graduate from high school. So they lowered the standards and made the course work easier. As a result, the lives of students are wasted and the quality of education is decreased. Now a high school degree means nothing. Whereas in the 1930's you could get a good education without going to college, now you have to pay for education beyond high school if you are to have any hope of getting a good job.
And now it would appear that the same thing is happening to colleges. Think about it; if everyone gets a college education, what will it be worth? Will we have a situation where a college degree is worth as much as a high school degree is today, and people will have to pay for graduate school if they hope to get a god job?
Some would say that this is already happening.
I do not think a college education should be free for everyone. If the public school system was in any way competent, high school would provide enough of a liberal and technical education to guarantee a good job, the way it used to.
On a more personal note, I pay nothing for my college education. I got a full four-year academic merit scholarship. In fact, when you factor in my job as an RA, I am making a profit while I go to university. My parents don't have to pay a penny, and I will have no debts.
This thread seems to have strayed into the merits of public versus private education. I won't dwell on that, except to say that the state education system is a monopoly backed up by the police. They take your money by force and then compel you to attend their crappy schools. The only way to escape is to home-school or pay a lot of money. Thus the poor are trapped in bad schools while the rich are able to get a better education elsewhere.
We need to introduce competition, and school vouchers are the best way possible to do this. Consider that the state pays about $14,000 a year to educate a kid in the dismal public schools. If they reduce taxes by $12,000 a family and give all families a $10,000 voucher to use to pay for a good $8,000 private school, everyone wins. (Except the teachers unions and bureaucrats)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:16
|
|
I agree with Richard Bruns, this country (USA) used to provide a quality education in 8 years, and an excellent one in 12 years. Even rural districts provided a good education. Both of my parents grew up on farms, and both got gaduate degrees. My father is a Professor, and my mother was a physician. Now school is mainly a babysitting service for working parents. It cannot afford to kick anyone out because it's now illegal for children to be left at home alone or work, and a high percentage of families have no parent who remains home during the day.
The effect of this is that the less talented students have no reason to fear a mediocre or poor performance, while talented students are bored with a curriculum suited for dummies and everyone suffers from disruptions caused by the unmotivated. This in turn effects the University system, where most students arrive in a condition where it is necessary to give them remedial training in one or more areas. What a huge waste!
I think that either private schools or a complete revamping of the public schools is in order, and either approach could work to update our schools to both the current society as it stands and better serve the public that pays for education one way or another. One reason that I tend to lean toward vouchers and at least a portion of education being funnelled into private schools is that between the bureacracy of the current system and the teacher's unions there is a lot of resistance to change.
One thing that has to happen is that there needs to be a tracking system whereby students are divided by both raw ability and their level of motivation. A larger system might even be able to further subdivide students based upon their preferred learning styles. The problem with tracking students is that it doesn't tend to work as well in a public school system where most of the districts and schools are large. Another problem is the portability of education. Americans are probably the most internally mobile of peoples, and having a standard or set of standard educational styles is critical so that the children can pick up where they left off if mom gets transferred to Iowa. We do a very poor job of this now. Even though education is done in an industrial fashion it doesn't even take advantage of things like standardization that are the bread and butter advantages of a large scale.
I would argue that more and smaller schools are a better model. The key would be 'branding', whether this applied to an actual private company's educational product, or merely a standardised and known type of educational product produced by a charter or even an old style public school. This would allow children to attend the type of school that best fits their needs and the needs of society (the customer after all), and it would allow a portabilty that would minimize any disruption caused by a move. Additionally colleges and universities would have a handle on what to expect from students produced by various types of schools. Finally each of these educational styles would be to some extent in competition with one another, which one would hope would reward success and vanquish failure to the extent possible.
Any switch would require good planning and about a generation to accomplish. It would also probably require some money, which I would take from higher education. I would get rid of about half of the Universities in the U.S. and replace them with:
A) A decent high school education that means at least as much as a current 4 year degree from a diploma mill does now.
B) An improved adult education system which better serves a working public (like good community colleges do now) with both technical training and intellectual enrichment courses without the unnecessary structure and high cost that Universities tend to have. There is no reason to force students through years 13-17 of their educations before they ever set foot in the workplace. A lot of people end up getting degrees in areas they hate actually working in (a friend of mine got a Phd in Physical Chemistry, worked for two years and headed off to law school!). What an enormous waste. Better to get out there, get some work experience and use that expensive education at a time and for a purpose that makes the most sense, which is not necessarily when you are 18.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-2001 07:00
|