Will bringing education to the masses inevitably lead to its degradation?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
My real question is why ansheem continues to troll here with his bigoted, elitist crap, when he gets no love here.

The fact that he continues to present his elitist opinions against the inevitable storm of disapproval from the masses on here is all to the good and health of the forum. After all, no-one complained about the ultra-right bollox that Wiglaf spouted.

[snoopy369]

Bigoted opinions perhaps aside, but Aneeshm is bringing up a valid point: even universal education must be appropriately tailored to the individual, or it will fail. I don't go nearly as far as Ozzy, as I definitely feel people need structured education (and have seen the catastrophic failure of non-structured education not substantially different from his suggested solution, even at the 12th grade level, firsthand); but there is a need for education that is appropriate both in method and in level for the individual. Many people - even quite intelligent people - do not benefit from classical education, or from modern-day education; they perform much better with 'practical' education (direct-application teaching, ie vocational education).

It's unfortunately a question that is hard to discuss without elitism and bigotry being in the way - either as implication or as actuality - but that does not make it a question that needs answering.

[onodera]

Schools and universities shouldn't be evaluated based on the grades of their graduates. That's the first thing that has to be done. Teachers should not be afraid to fail their students.
The second thing is getting rid of curved grading. This works when you're running away from a bear, but not when graduating from a class of numbnuts. Establish an absolute grading metric and stick to it.
The third thing is realizing that higher education is not for everybody and having the balls to say this outloud. Here in Russia it is estimated that about 20% of high school graduates are going to fail their Maths exam this spring. It is not a national tragedy or the failure of our education system (or maybe it is). It just shows that 20% of our youths don't understand what derivatives and antiderivatives are. They'll make good metalworkers or something.

And I don't think mass education will lead to degradation, it will lead to communism.

[Cort Haus]

Fair play to Russia for sticking to the principle of standards. I'd argue though, that failure to grasp some of the more advanced mathematical complexities should not restrict a student's horizons to metalwork - valuable and essential a value-adding trade as that is.

[snoopy369]

It's a bit more complicated than that, however. Schools SHOULD be held, to a certain extent, to standards based on the accomplishment of their students, because that is the job of the school - to educate the students. Certainly that should not be the sole criterion, and it should not be written in such a way that schools have an incentive to 'cheat', but at the same time, it is the fundamental reason for the school's existence, and the teacher's job.

Certainly agreed that not everyone will meet every standard, and that's fine. It's fairly hard, though, to figure out a fair way of evaluating the school's performance that does not penalize (or advantage) them based on the innate abilities and tendencies students they have, but yet does adequately evaluate the success or failure of a school.

[Supr49er]

I was "educated" in high school. I had good grades and SAT scores and got into a really good University (Cal Poly).

I thought I was smart, but I didn't know how to think. College taught me critical thinking and analysis.

So, how do you measure educational success?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Well, did you actually read what I wrote?

Yes. Did you actually read what I wrote?

[Fake Boris]

Aneeshm has kind of a point.

In America for instance, it's a bit difficult to fail a student who's also a "customer" paying several thousands a year.
The "Gentleman's C" does not exist in countries where education is free anyway.

[Fake Boris]

And regarding your OP, Aneeshm.

Are you even aware of private schools or enriched programs in public schools?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Supr49er
I was "educated" in high school. I had good grades and SAT scores and got into a really good University (Cal Poly).

I thought I was smart, but I didn't know how to think. College taught me critical thinking and analysis.

So, how do you measure educational success?

Yea, I think this is a common experience for students across the country. Whether they are in good schools or not.

If students were consumers of their own education than they'd be the ones measuring educational success. If they didn't feel they were getting what they needed at a school they'd have the option of switching elsewhere.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The "Gentleman's C" does not exist in countries where education is free anyway.

You are quite wrong. Here in Russia most teachers would rather give a 3 (C) than a 2 (F) to save their own time.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by onodera

You are quite wrong. Here in Russia most teachers would rather give a 3 (C) than a 2 (F) to save their own time.

Isn't Russia so corrupt that you get to pay for your As anyway?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The fact that he continues to present his elitist opinions against the inevitable storm of disapproval from the masses on here is all to the good and health of the forum. After all, no-one complained about the ultra-right bollox that Wiglaf spouted.

Yes, but Wiglaf's crap is pointed and often funny-crazy. Aneeshm's just rambles on; it's not only bigoted, but boring.

[OzzyKP]

I never read Wiglaf's stuff. It is just raving mad. Aneeshm's posts are at least intelligent.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by onodera
The second thing is getting rid of curved grading. This works when you're running away from a bear, but not when graduating from a class of numbnuts. Establish an absolute grading metric and stick to it.

Hmm, but how wide-spread is this metric? If you have thousands of teachers (or even just schools) grading absolutely, but with different curricula, those grades will be absolute within class/school, but you will still end up with an A student at one school knowing less than a B student at another school. If the curricula is standardized, then you cut down opportunity for innovation, and neuter the ability of education to be tailored to the individual.

Also, a practical example of why I like curves:
Sophomore English class, my teacher couldn't write tests worth crap. For most of the tests we took, the highest grade (usually mine, by the way ) was a 80 or so. A couple of the tests I think were failed by everyone, including me. Now, in this instance, it wasn't because the tests were hard and challenging so much as filled with poorly written questions, questions with no correct answers, and questions that needed information no sane person remembers. But what if the tests were well written, but just written for a more advanced class than this teacher had? Should everyone in the class fail because the teacher isn't teaching to the proper level?

It just shows that 20% of our youths don't understand what derivatives and antiderivatives are. They'll make good metalworkers or something.

That puts you well ahead of America. Though really, why does it matter? Near as I can tell, maybe 20% of the population needs to know any calculus. If your data is correct (and I have no reason to think it isn't) that means 60% of your population has had resources wasted teaching it something it doesn't need to know.