ok, for all you school-haters out there on HN, one thing that i think is often overlooked in the 'discussion' of how public schooling is such a mind-numbing rote memorization grind is the fact that it is a way of developing grit, discipline, whatever you call it ... the ability to endure through boring or tedious tasks to achieve some measurable goal. i think that for most people, the biggest determiner of 'success' or 'happiness' in adult life isn't raw intelligence or inspiring creativity, but rather the ability to just finish something! even the most anti-establishment f*-the-man entrepreneurs here on HN would never have succeeded in their businesses without GRIT.
how many friends do you know who say "oh i'm so much smarter than all these tools who got good grades" but then they can never actually finish any one of their 'divinely-inspired' projects because they quit as soon as some part gets tedious or boring?
in short, yes, public schooling can be improved in many ways (so can the registration process at the DMV or other bureaucracies), but i hope people out there realize the value of developing grit through doing seemingly boring rote work.
I can spend 8 hours programming a computer with just 1 or two 20 minute brakes for eating or a mug refill, but i found it impossible to concentrate for a 40 minutes high-school chemistry class. Could it be that school is just BORING?
I can read a thick book on a hard subject(programming, philosophy, history), but could never finish a fucking chapter from a high-school text book, without falling asleep. Could it be that the textbooks are badly written?
I can spend days and weeks writing an essay on something that interests me, but i fucking hated writing 3 paragraph short essays in school. Could it be the topics, the format and especially the time constrain made me write badly?
If school taught me anything is that unless im working for myself on what i want, its better to just half ass everything, and not do your best, because all it takes is to not be your worst. It probably made me even less disciplined because my natural rebelliousness made me pride myself as an undisciplined misfit. I was proud of being lazy, stupid, stubborn, rebellious and all of that precisely because they wanted me to not be like that. Fuck school. It messed me up, and caused me great suffering with very little benefit, when at least in my case, there was a clearly better way of doing things.
Developing grit and discipline in the pursuit of the asinine is as just as harmful if not more, than not developing grit and discipline in the pursuit of the sublime.
Much of what passes for education much more closely matches the former than the latter.
Someone makes that point every single time, more like. It strikes me as a rationalization: would you design schools the way they are, to teach grit? They seem better adapted to produce submission: showing up for the job every day and doing what you're told. This is related to the discipline to finish your own projects, but like with a sign change along important dimensions.
how many friends do you know who say "oh i'm so much smarter than all these tools who got good grades" but then they can never actually finish any one of their 'divinely-inspired' projects because they quit as soon as some part gets tedious or boring?
There certainly are lazy people claiming to be smarter than those with good grades.
But in my experience, the students with perfect grades are far more likely to excel at school than at anything else.
When I started teaching at NYU, I ran into a lot of these students. They typically rocked my calculus 1-2 classes; they took calculus in high school but wanted to maintain a 4.0 GPA so they took it again in college.
Even in school, past a certain point, it doesn't serve them well. In Calc 3 or Linear Algebra (two more advanced classes I've taught), you must think for yourself to pass, rather than just applying the differentiation algorithm. That's when the 4.0's get pwned.
It gets even worse when I interview them for a job and ask them an open ended question: "Looking at XXX data, how can you estimate YYY? What other data would be useful?"
Many of them are reasonably smart. But they've spent years preparing themselves for schooling, not for actually building things. I'll take the kid with lower grades + open source project any day .
I think all our children should be sent to retraining camps and made to work fifteen-hour days assembling electronics. That will create true grit and allow them to value whatever small rewards later life will give them.
I get your larger point, that a sour-grapes excuse of "Well, school was booooring" doesn't necessarily indicate a successful individual - but just because losers also hate the system doesn't mean the system actually works for any real purpose.
But why? You can develop grit by doing things that really suck, but ultimately get you somewhere you want to go, or that leads to some sort of innovation down the line. But to force people to do things that are completely unrelated to what they want to do in life, just for the sake of doing it, is a huge waste of time.
You gain grit by doing things that need to be done, hopefully in pursuit of some greater goal (more than likely, just getting paid). Not by for-the-hell-of-it forced work. That just turns you off everything.
All my math classes felt like that. I was simply being told to memorize formulas so that later the teacher could give me numbers and I would plug them in. Rarely was I ever told why I would want to use those formulas.
My best class was a chemistry course taught by a 60 year old man that used to test missiles at one point. The grades never really mattered and as long as you knew the vocabulary he would pass you. But where he made a difference was giving us examples of why stuff worked along with how. For the final we had to determine what an unknown substance was. There was no right method to do this, just simply a number of different tests that we had to do and be able to understand what the results were. We then had to 'think' as to what it might mean about the substance we were testing. He set us free and we passed and failed on our own accord because it was up to the students to read the book to try and find just one more test that might give a better result.
The one lasting comment that my chemistry teacher told me was that he was not concerned with how well we memorized things because he knew we would forget. There would always be time to read up on whatever we were doing on the job. He wanted us to have the core understanding so that when we did look up the boiling point or specific gravity of a compound we would know what those facts would signify as opposed to learning stats on the more common elements. Best teacher I ever had because he didn't so much as teach me as he made me think for myself.
This is what i've come to experience myself.
Often a solid grasp of the core fundamentals of your domain is more valuable that having a half-baked knowledge of various in-depth areas.
Like the old man said, (or didn't) , You can always google it from your exobrain.
I even recall Sherlock Holmes' character saying something to that effect; he says something about the human brain having finite usable storage capacity (with a low-enough access-time). I really liked reading that quote (confirmation bias. he he)
Oh come on now, Valedictorian, you can find plenty of important life skills to be learned in school if you only look hard enough:
kindergarden - learn how to play nicely together
first grade - learn how to read and write
second grade - learn how to add, subtract, multiply, & divide
third grade - learn how to spell
fourth grade - learn how to play a musical instrument
fifth grade - learn how to appreciate great literature
sixth grade - learn how we got where we are
seventh grade - learn a foreign language
eighth grade - learn how to type and use a computer
ninth grade - learn how the world is put together
tenth grade - learn about other people in the world
eleventh grade - learn how to balance a job and school
twelveth grade - learn how to plan for and dream about the future
freshman year - learn how many other kinds of people are out there
sophomore year - learn how to chug a beer, fill a bong, and get laid
junior year - learn how to stand upon the shoulders of giants
senior year - learn how to find your place in the world
graduate school - learn how to play nicely together, all over again
They don't. That's the problem with the school system. Likewise, you seem to be so focused on skills that you can't even question anymore why those skills are necessary, or even worthwhile.
I read all the boring comments and this is the only one I liked. Learning is hard, caring about stuff that has no relevance to food or sex is hard. School is not about helping the rug rats but getting them out of the adults hair until they can kill their own horse for supper. Edumacation is about following rules. Follow pointless rules in a chain for 200 hours straight and maybe you'll discover something that actually helps the human race. Otherwise its all masturbation. If the kid is stupid, I want the kid beaten into submition. If the kid is smart, he can do the assignments trivially and get an A. I see no need to change the way babysitting kids works. Creativity is not the same as rule following skills. If she really wanted to educate herself she would have realized that she should have been skipping class, reading more sci fi and masturbating harder. She was probably just unhappy from being russian.
I would have loved to have the experience to not just hear her speech in person, but to see the reactions from everyone. The faces of her fellow students as well as teachers/parents.
There's a lot of selection bias here - the majority (all?) of the readers of this site are far more intelligent than the majority.
So all (most? many?) of us will probably agree with her (at least as regarding our own schooling).
I know I do.
But the trouble, the reality, is that most students can't do what she suggests, using our minds for creativity, and not rote work. There really is a difference in intelligence, and the sad truth is that for most students school is exactly right.
The good news is that the really intelligent rise above it and succeed anyway. The lost ones are those that are just a bit more intelligent than the rest, but not quite enough to succeed on their own.
>But the trouble, the reality, is that most students can't do what she suggests,
How do you know? Not everyone learns the same way. Personally I find it quite arrogant to assume that you or I are just born with more potential than those who don't end up as "smart". Environment has an enormous effect on learning as does the teaching itself. Lots and lots of students don't understand calculus. But a really talented teacher can make it clear to anyone.
Look at recent events (e.g. with the US health care debate) and it's clear that if the US education system isn't addressed soon it's going to be too late. We have to take a hard look at where and why it's broken. Not assuming it's "as good or better than everyone else's" and for the love of Pete don't accept Hitleresque "we're just the chosen ones and they're not" nonsense.
>But the trouble, the reality, is that most students can't do >what she suggests, using our minds for creativity, and not >rote work. There really is a difference in intelligence, and >the sad truth is that for most students school is exactly >right.
I disagree. I don't think we're that smart, and I don't (usually) think the rest of the world is that dumb. Besides, is memorizing soon-to-be-forgotten dates and listening to other students butcher Shakespeare in a uniform monotone exactly right for most students? Is doing the same math over and over again, boring those who get it and failing to bring understanding to those who don't, exactly right?
More people need to be able to find their way to meaningful work (not necessarily creative work.) I claim that the public school system hinders this process.
> The good news is that the really intelligent rise above it and succeed anyway.
Probably only if you circularly define the really intelligent as those who succeed. This definitely doesn't work if you use IQ.
I do not agree with her as well. Yes there are problems with the system. Yes, we can have a more liberal flexible system. But the system is designed for everyone.
How many people in your class didn't know the capitals? How many couldn't write a formal letter? How many couldn't solve for x? I'm sure majority of HN thought this was trivial, but many others need this, and the only way they can learn it is through repetitive, boring, tedious tasks.
It would be more helpful if schooling allowed everyone to excel in whatever they wanted to, but the fact is we still need a basic understanding of everything. Yeah, it's easy to subscribe to the romantic view that doodlers will become great artists, but the fact is being a great artist and knowing differential calculus are mutually exclusive. She has a very black or white view of the educational system. She half expects this magical school system that would transform her into this creative genius if she just demands it loudly. She seems afraid of failure, she doesn't want to work hard for it.
If it weren't for these boring tedious tasks, I would've never known about the works of Shakespeare or how cells multiply and many other things I would've never considered studying for, but later found really interesting. The educational system isn't meant to be a one shop stop for your enlightening. It's meant to show you what's possible, what doors you can take. Then you can walk through any door - work on whatever excites you, whatever interests you.
I don't agree with her, well, sure a little. The fact is, like capitalism, the schooling system is the worst system, except for all the others.
And for the majority, it is great for them.
I think this is one of the areas where it is so easy to criticize, because of course there are problems, unless someone actually recommends a good alternative system, I just ignore them.
This speech shook me rudely awake , reminded me of my post-college long-term life goal(one that makes a contribution to human wealth). My goal is to build a excellent institution of learning, to train the dreamers and doers of tomorrow(not mutually exclusive). This place would rival the IITs in depth of knowledge imparted but would strive to create more well-rounded individuals who would be masters of their own destiny. I feel sad when the cream of India's IITs today prefer to chase that money-minting Investment Banking career or accumulate advanced degrees state-side for a career in academia. I'm not sure if this indicates a problem with their admissions filter.
(IIT = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institutes_of_Technology)
In India, Education is a capital-intensive , profit-maximizing beast of an industry. The admissions racket is huge. Parents often have to 'donate' (fork out) insane amounts of cash (by Indian income standards) to 'reserve' a seat in an Engineering/medical school. (except the IITs and govt-colleges, BTW)
Breaking into the market requires a large windfall and the ability to invest it wisely in order to build the foundation of such an institution. I'm thinking tech startup route naturally, since that is the only thing that comes to mind w.r.t immediate skill scope.
I suffered no end of anguish when trapped in the rote-learning institutions i'd been shuffled through. At the very least, I dream of hacking it slightly for the better, for my unborn children's generation's sake.
Does anyone in America have the same thought, or are your institutions of higher-learning pretty much satisfactory? This article refers to High-school and onwards, while my focus is slightly narrower : the undergraduate 'professional' education in developing countries; It changes whole families' economic statuses due to the current nature of the global market. We need more startups in India just like the US does.
>Does anyone in America have the same thought, or are your institutions of higher-learning pretty much satisfactory?
Frankly, I think our colleges are pretty much great. We have enough supply that pretty much everyone can go, and the public universities are cheap enough that most can afford it with financial aid and a night job if necessary.
The education varies, but you don't often hear people say when they leave college that they were prevented from learning. Even mediocre schools often have an honors program that gets much better results.
Can you please elaborate why you want to focus on the professional under-graduate courses? I share the same anguish and thinking on it led me to believe that the process should start much early (High School and Higher-Secondary). This provides an opportunity to help the kids to work their ways independently (against the social pressure) and figure out what they want to do when it comes to picking an under-graduate course. Given that the current generation has seen much more financial independence than the previous ones (and possibly sharing the same anguish), I think this is the right time to drive the schooling system in the right direction.
Interesting. We share a passion. I exited a university with a computer science degree and finally then realized how many years I had wasted. In that moment I began to understand the many ways my mind had been brainwashed and muted. Public schools in the United States are in a sad place.
Luckily there are a lot of angry people and hence a lot of movements with good intents. Good luck to them all.
My primary passion is to improve all this as well.
I am sincerely sorry to say that she ain't seen nothing yet.
Take a look at countries like India or China where the test is a way of life. Not only do all educational institutions - schools, universities or otherwise - produce robots off an assembly line, such robotic behavior is praised and rewarded by the society.
I once gave a seminar at a Chinese university and these guys scared the creep out of me. They focussed me for hours without ever moving a limb.
Anyway, we should not blame the original valedictorian for her limited views. Experience comes with time and still she's right about the things she says.
Someone mentioned Montessori schools, which seem to do pretty well. Another along similar lines, but more extreme, is Sudbury Valley schools:
http://www.sudval.org/
Kids are taught whatever they ask to be taught. They aren't divided into classes, they can just wander around the campus asking for help from any teacher they like. If you start kids young in this environment it works really well; kids are hard-wired to learn as much as possible if you don't make it a miserable experience.
Something else they do: every kid gets a vote in school decisions. A kid's vote counts as much as a teacher's. It's like they're teaching kids to be citizens in a democracy, instead of subjects in a dictatorship.
I once read that (iirc) New Zealand used to have horrible public schools, and fixed it with this system:
- Every parent can send their kids to whatever school they wish.
- Each school is directed entirely by the parents, with no interference from government bureaucracy.
- Each school gets $X per enrolled student.
It took about ten years to shake out, then they had great schools.
The Sudbury Valley model is definitely an extreme as far as the freedom & responsibility it invests in its students -- the school decisions you mention include expelling students, whether to rehire each teacher every year, etc.
>- Every parent can send their kids to whatever school they wish.
This is an impossible system to work if you don't have unlimited funds for education. Parents want to send their kids to "the good school" getting the better grades, with better facilities or whatever. Not all parents in an area can do this, there isn't enough room. As the good school gets fuller, it takes more of the cream and the other schools suffer. But this school is leaching the money away from other schools too as the richer parents that help to contribute time and resources and money move to the "good school". Ultimately the other schools aren't getting the pupils they need to run properly and suffer incredibly. The one school gets better the others worse.
>- Each school is directed entirely by the parents, with no interference from government bureaucracy.
There are many areas of running a school that can be made more efficient by using local government departments. Paying employees, insurance, grounds-keeping, building maintenance, healthcare provisions, utility purchasing, school meal provision, etc., can all be run more efficiently with a local grouping of schools rather than individual schools fighting it out for themselves. Do you know who is good at administrating such groups? Local government.
Indeed things like creating syllabuses and setting exams can too be streamlined by cooperation across schools.
>- Each school gets $X per enrolled student.
I'm assuming here that you're not allowing x to vary from school to school. What about areas with high levels of non-native language speakers that need translators and extra helpers. Or that by some quirk have large numbers of disabled students that require special care and equipment. Or those in rural areas that pay a lot more for bus travel than inner-city schools. Do these schools have to restrict the care and opportunity they give to pupils because of costs that are out of their control?
I think this is something many high school seniors realize at some point or another: had we known how easy it really was to game the system, we might have started playing the game earlier and earned more points. We aren't rewarded for interests, or how we approach things, or even for helping our fellow students; we're rewarded for scoring as many points as we can to the detriment of all other things.
It is extremely validating to hear this coming from the lips of a valedictorian. I've always defended my disinterest in school by asserting that I'm way too smart for school. I struggled for my entire academic career because I naively believed that the point of school was to learn, when really, the point of school is to follow directions.
Now, when I tell people that I have no interest in college, they could dismiss my disinterest as a defense mechanism. I know that most people will never understand what I'm talking about when I claim that mass education is a tool for creating workers, but at least some intelligent people will read this brilliant speech and know what I am talking about.
I don't care anymore about arguing with the world, I just want to care for myself and my family, but I am glad this woman got a chance expose some truth to her class. I feel for her confusion and fear about missing out on self-discovery for many years of her life, but it is pretty clear that she is on the right path now and I can't wait to see what she goes on to accomplish in the future.
To illustrate this idea, doesn't it perturb you to learn about the idea of "critical thinking." Is there really such a thing as "uncritically thinking?"
Reading Edward de Bono has got me convinced that there are several modes of thinking and critical thinking is just one of them. Critical thinking as I understand it means looking for flaws, downsides, logic errors in ideas. It is necessary but it cannot be the only thing that you do - you need to come up with the ideas first.
I want to thank you for your beautiful articulation of the sad truth that makes mass education painful for so many people.
Unfortunately, school very effectively destroys people's ability to act on the reality you tried show to your classmates and community, but I am appreciative nonetheless because it is better to give the truth a voice, even if it falls on deaf ears. You exposed yourself and embraced vulnerability, and that is the most powerful thing a human being can do.
If you have any pedagogical theories, please share them with the world. I am all ears.
I have no interests because I saw every subject of study as work, and I excelled at every subject just for the purpose of excelling, not learning. And quite frankly, now I'm scared.
Explain? She learned how to work the system, not follow any passion of hers. Sure that's definitely a skill and a valuable one, though how much better would it be if it was better focused at something worth something a bit more?
Ah yes, I find myself wondering: how to explain to younglings that even more important than the realization that one needn't conform to the status quo (and indeed one might reject one's entire frame of reference) is that the truth -- rejecting only those things you can honestly, authoritatively reject -- is a much more sustainable approach, even though it takes longer and appears harder. But, within one's expanding limits, hard things are efficient. They're dense. You solve hard things, and then you can easily solve easy things.
If the idea is to maximize innovation and happiness in the world -- it's a little bit trickier than everyone should start rejecting things too cavalierly and promoting their own innovative ability to quote H.L. Mencken.
But that's not to knock the speech at all. I think it's a great part of the conversation about what really is the best way to prepare high school students? And how do we get there? Identification of a large problem is key. A key prick of conscience at the beginning of many large solution spaces.
But if I were to say one thing it would be:
Be as truthful as you can.
ETA. I really shouldn't joke about 'younglings'. Although there is an argument to be made about appreciating the benefits of any situation (even misguided high schools have enviable qualities and resources, in a certain light). But it's really bad these days. Getting into college is 2-3x as hard as it was a decade ago, just on admissions rates (let alone how that factors into other qualities and explodes exponentially into other headaches). And economic hard times exacerbate things dramatically. In that sense, this speech is increasingly pertinent. It's important to jolt people into a much more focused approach to high school education. But also, in a certain light, I guess what I'm saying is that challenges are what you make of them. It's easy to make speeches as you're leaving. Even if the speeches end on the idea of coming back some day.
I had exactly the opposite experience. Graduated from Mathematics/Informatics specialized High School, second worst in class - way off below the average grade. Yet I got for free in the University, because was 9th at the national computer science (informatics) olympiad, and this gave me an automatic "A" (still the high-school diploma was taken, so it was a bit of a risk).
Anyhow - I hated school :) and too bad never finished university (too much parties).
It's hard to speak to another's educational experience (I know I've been really fortunate) but is it really as apocalyptic as some of those paragraphs suggest?
"Conditioned to blurt out facts" -- "this period of indoctrination" -- "an educational system that clandestinely sets us up for jobs that could be automated, for work that need not be done, for enslavement without fervency for meaningful achievement"
Nuance is important in arguments and creating pathways for dialog even moreso. But maybe that's not the goal of an 'inspirational' graduation speech.. Despite the last paragraph.
policy makers often look at side effects of success and, not understanding how success is achieved, seek to make the side effects more likely.
They see successful economies spend lavish sums on housing, so to have a successful economy, subsidize housing.
Intelligent people do well on tests, so raising test scores will produce intelligent people. Never mind that the obsession with test taking make it even a more mind numbing experience.
Are people truly better innovators after going through such a process? We need to study exactly this question. Actually, I would not be surprised if alternatives like the Montessori method have already been proven superior.
It seems like we might be heading into an era where questioning the methods of traditional Western education will become commonplace. This is exciting, as it cracks open the paradigm for smart people to analyze and modify. If we let some of the top creative, scientific minds spill their guts about schooling in a public forum, who knows what could happen?
What I worry about, however, are the fools who will use specific criticism of our implementation of education to fight education in the general sense. Every time I read one of these articles, there are inevitably dozens of comments by idiots who don't have any specific criticism of the system at hand, but would rather rail against the idea that learning is important. In fact, conflating the "Platonic ideal" of education with the American school system is exactly the kind of confusion that prevents anyone from making any progress in the first place.
The truly mind expanding experiences I've had in my life have come from meeting new people, engaging them in conversation, and trying to learn how to get along. Meeting people who were interesting before they ever went to college, or were interesting despite never having gone.
"Well, you meet people in college!" You'd get a better experience starting a rock band, joining a community service group (or hell, joining the military, it's a similar time commitment and they pay you), all activities essentially free compared to college. If anything, the system of accreditation, the politics of the teacher-student relationship, and the financial concerns of meeting even the most modest tuition rates are nothing but impediments to "expanding ones mind".
[+] [-] pgbovine|15 years ago|reply
ok, for all you school-haters out there on HN, one thing that i think is often overlooked in the 'discussion' of how public schooling is such a mind-numbing rote memorization grind is the fact that it is a way of developing grit, discipline, whatever you call it ... the ability to endure through boring or tedious tasks to achieve some measurable goal. i think that for most people, the biggest determiner of 'success' or 'happiness' in adult life isn't raw intelligence or inspiring creativity, but rather the ability to just finish something! even the most anti-establishment f*-the-man entrepreneurs here on HN would never have succeeded in their businesses without GRIT.
how many friends do you know who say "oh i'm so much smarter than all these tools who got good grades" but then they can never actually finish any one of their 'divinely-inspired' projects because they quit as soon as some part gets tedious or boring?
in short, yes, public schooling can be improved in many ways (so can the registration process at the DMV or other bureaucracies), but i hope people out there realize the value of developing grit through doing seemingly boring rote work.
</rant>
[+] [-] pavelludiq|15 years ago|reply
I can read a thick book on a hard subject(programming, philosophy, history), but could never finish a fucking chapter from a high-school text book, without falling asleep. Could it be that the textbooks are badly written?
I can spend days and weeks writing an essay on something that interests me, but i fucking hated writing 3 paragraph short essays in school. Could it be the topics, the format and especially the time constrain made me write badly?
If school taught me anything is that unless im working for myself on what i want, its better to just half ass everything, and not do your best, because all it takes is to not be your worst. It probably made me even less disciplined because my natural rebelliousness made me pride myself as an undisciplined misfit. I was proud of being lazy, stupid, stubborn, rebellious and all of that precisely because they wanted me to not be like that. Fuck school. It messed me up, and caused me great suffering with very little benefit, when at least in my case, there was a clearly better way of doing things.
[+] [-] etherael|15 years ago|reply
Much of what passes for education much more closely matches the former than the latter.
- A 9th grade dropout.
[+] [-] abecedarius|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yummyfajitas|15 years ago|reply
There certainly are lazy people claiming to be smarter than those with good grades.
But in my experience, the students with perfect grades are far more likely to excel at school than at anything else.
When I started teaching at NYU, I ran into a lot of these students. They typically rocked my calculus 1-2 classes; they took calculus in high school but wanted to maintain a 4.0 GPA so they took it again in college.
Even in school, past a certain point, it doesn't serve them well. In Calc 3 or Linear Algebra (two more advanced classes I've taught), you must think for yourself to pass, rather than just applying the differentiation algorithm. That's when the 4.0's get pwned.
It gets even worse when I interview them for a job and ask them an open ended question: "Looking at XXX data, how can you estimate YYY? What other data would be useful?"
Many of them are reasonably smart. But they've spent years preparing themselves for schooling, not for actually building things. I'll take the kid with lower grades + open source project any day .
[+] [-] Vivtek|15 years ago|reply
I get your larger point, that a sour-grapes excuse of "Well, school was booooring" doesn't necessarily indicate a successful individual - but just because losers also hate the system doesn't mean the system actually works for any real purpose.
[+] [-] phjohnst|15 years ago|reply
You gain grit by doing things that need to be done, hopefully in pursuit of some greater goal (more than likely, just getting paid). Not by for-the-hell-of-it forced work. That just turns you off everything.
[+] [-] TGJ|15 years ago|reply
My best class was a chemistry course taught by a 60 year old man that used to test missiles at one point. The grades never really mattered and as long as you knew the vocabulary he would pass you. But where he made a difference was giving us examples of why stuff worked along with how. For the final we had to determine what an unknown substance was. There was no right method to do this, just simply a number of different tests that we had to do and be able to understand what the results were. We then had to 'think' as to what it might mean about the substance we were testing. He set us free and we passed and failed on our own accord because it was up to the students to read the book to try and find just one more test that might give a better result.
The one lasting comment that my chemistry teacher told me was that he was not concerned with how well we memorized things because he knew we would forget. There would always be time to read up on whatever we were doing on the job. He wanted us to have the core understanding so that when we did look up the boiling point or specific gravity of a compound we would know what those facts would signify as opposed to learning stats on the more common elements. Best teacher I ever had because he didn't so much as teach me as he made me think for myself.
[+] [-] vimalg2|15 years ago|reply
Like the old man said, (or didn't) , You can always google it from your exobrain.
I even recall Sherlock Holmes' character saying something to that effect; he says something about the human brain having finite usable storage capacity (with a low-enough access-time). I really liked reading that quote (confirmation bias. he he)
[+] [-] edw519|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barredo|15 years ago|reply
Question: Is this the general case for US Education?
[+] [-] rglullis|15 years ago|reply
They don't. That's the problem with the school system. Likewise, you seem to be so focused on skills that you can't even question anymore why those skills are necessary, or even worthwhile.
[+] [-] tel|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PhilipM|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malkia|15 years ago|reply
I'm not sure where is going to be best for him. I mean his just a small child :) - Just playing should be enough for him...
[+] [-] JabavuAdams|15 years ago|reply
Either that or they're recognizing and embracing the uniqueness of your passion to not read.
[+] [-] Twisol|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kloncks|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|15 years ago|reply
So all (most? many?) of us will probably agree with her (at least as regarding our own schooling).
I know I do.
But the trouble, the reality, is that most students can't do what she suggests, using our minds for creativity, and not rote work. There really is a difference in intelligence, and the sad truth is that for most students school is exactly right.
The good news is that the really intelligent rise above it and succeed anyway. The lost ones are those that are just a bit more intelligent than the rest, but not quite enough to succeed on their own.
[+] [-] loewenskind|15 years ago|reply
How do you know? Not everyone learns the same way. Personally I find it quite arrogant to assume that you or I are just born with more potential than those who don't end up as "smart". Environment has an enormous effect on learning as does the teaching itself. Lots and lots of students don't understand calculus. But a really talented teacher can make it clear to anyone.
Look at recent events (e.g. with the US health care debate) and it's clear that if the US education system isn't addressed soon it's going to be too late. We have to take a hard look at where and why it's broken. Not assuming it's "as good or better than everyone else's" and for the love of Pete don't accept Hitleresque "we're just the chosen ones and they're not" nonsense.
[+] [-] dgordon|15 years ago|reply
I disagree. I don't think we're that smart, and I don't (usually) think the rest of the world is that dumb. Besides, is memorizing soon-to-be-forgotten dates and listening to other students butcher Shakespeare in a uniform monotone exactly right for most students? Is doing the same math over and over again, boring those who get it and failing to bring understanding to those who don't, exactly right?
More people need to be able to find their way to meaningful work (not necessarily creative work.) I claim that the public school system hinders this process.
> The good news is that the really intelligent rise above it and succeed anyway.
Probably only if you circularly define the really intelligent as those who succeed. This definitely doesn't work if you use IQ.
[+] [-] GVRV|15 years ago|reply
How many people in your class didn't know the capitals? How many couldn't write a formal letter? How many couldn't solve for x? I'm sure majority of HN thought this was trivial, but many others need this, and the only way they can learn it is through repetitive, boring, tedious tasks.
It would be more helpful if schooling allowed everyone to excel in whatever they wanted to, but the fact is we still need a basic understanding of everything. Yeah, it's easy to subscribe to the romantic view that doodlers will become great artists, but the fact is being a great artist and knowing differential calculus are mutually exclusive. She has a very black or white view of the educational system. She half expects this magical school system that would transform her into this creative genius if she just demands it loudly. She seems afraid of failure, she doesn't want to work hard for it.
If it weren't for these boring tedious tasks, I would've never known about the works of Shakespeare or how cells multiply and many other things I would've never considered studying for, but later found really interesting. The educational system isn't meant to be a one shop stop for your enlightening. It's meant to show you what's possible, what doors you can take. Then you can walk through any door - work on whatever excites you, whatever interests you.
[+] [-] jacoblyles|15 years ago|reply
On that thought, I wonder why we get so much choice in so many services that we buy but so little in something that matters as much as education?
[+] [-] jey|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kiba|15 years ago|reply
If you have curiosity, you will discover something.
[+] [-] megablast|15 years ago|reply
And for the majority, it is great for them.
I think this is one of the areas where it is so easy to criticize, because of course there are problems, unless someone actually recommends a good alternative system, I just ignore them.
[+] [-] vimalg2|15 years ago|reply
In India, Education is a capital-intensive , profit-maximizing beast of an industry. The admissions racket is huge. Parents often have to 'donate' (fork out) insane amounts of cash (by Indian income standards) to 'reserve' a seat in an Engineering/medical school. (except the IITs and govt-colleges, BTW)
Breaking into the market requires a large windfall and the ability to invest it wisely in order to build the foundation of such an institution. I'm thinking tech startup route naturally, since that is the only thing that comes to mind w.r.t immediate skill scope.
I suffered no end of anguish when trapped in the rote-learning institutions i'd been shuffled through. At the very least, I dream of hacking it slightly for the better, for my unborn children's generation's sake.
Does anyone in America have the same thought, or are your institutions of higher-learning pretty much satisfactory? This article refers to High-school and onwards, while my focus is slightly narrower : the undergraduate 'professional' education in developing countries; It changes whole families' economic statuses due to the current nature of the global market. We need more startups in India just like the US does.
[+] [-] moultano|15 years ago|reply
Frankly, I think our colleges are pretty much great. We have enough supply that pretty much everyone can go, and the public universities are cheap enough that most can afford it with financial aid and a night job if necessary.
The education varies, but you don't often hear people say when they leave college that they were prevented from learning. Even mediocre schools often have an honors program that gets much better results.
[+] [-] ananthrk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aik|15 years ago|reply
Luckily there are a lot of angry people and hence a lot of movements with good intents. Good luck to them all.
My primary passion is to improve all this as well.
[+] [-] sykora|15 years ago|reply
Take a look at countries like India or China where the test is a way of life. Not only do all educational institutions - schools, universities or otherwise - produce robots off an assembly line, such robotic behavior is praised and rewarded by the society.
[+] [-] __bjoernd|15 years ago|reply
Anyway, we should not blame the original valedictorian for her limited views. Experience comes with time and still she's right about the things she says.
[+] [-] DennisP|15 years ago|reply
Kids are taught whatever they ask to be taught. They aren't divided into classes, they can just wander around the campus asking for help from any teacher they like. If you start kids young in this environment it works really well; kids are hard-wired to learn as much as possible if you don't make it a miserable experience.
Something else they do: every kid gets a vote in school decisions. A kid's vote counts as much as a teacher's. It's like they're teaching kids to be citizens in a democracy, instead of subjects in a dictatorship.
I once read that (iirc) New Zealand used to have horrible public schools, and fixed it with this system:
- Every parent can send their kids to whatever school they wish.
- Each school is directed entirely by the parents, with no interference from government bureaucracy.
- Each school gets $X per enrolled student.
It took about ten years to shake out, then they had great schools.
[+] [-] masomenos|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|15 years ago|reply
This is an impossible system to work if you don't have unlimited funds for education. Parents want to send their kids to "the good school" getting the better grades, with better facilities or whatever. Not all parents in an area can do this, there isn't enough room. As the good school gets fuller, it takes more of the cream and the other schools suffer. But this school is leaching the money away from other schools too as the richer parents that help to contribute time and resources and money move to the "good school". Ultimately the other schools aren't getting the pupils they need to run properly and suffer incredibly. The one school gets better the others worse.
>- Each school is directed entirely by the parents, with no interference from government bureaucracy.
There are many areas of running a school that can be made more efficient by using local government departments. Paying employees, insurance, grounds-keeping, building maintenance, healthcare provisions, utility purchasing, school meal provision, etc., can all be run more efficiently with a local grouping of schools rather than individual schools fighting it out for themselves. Do you know who is good at administrating such groups? Local government.
Indeed things like creating syllabuses and setting exams can too be streamlined by cooperation across schools.
>- Each school gets $X per enrolled student.
I'm assuming here that you're not allowing x to vary from school to school. What about areas with high levels of non-native language speakers that need translators and extra helpers. Or that by some quirk have large numbers of disabled students that require special care and equipment. Or those in rural areas that pay a lot more for bus travel than inner-city schools. Do these schools have to restrict the care and opportunity they give to pupils because of costs that are out of their control?
[+] [-] fendrak|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tommynazareth|15 years ago|reply
Now, when I tell people that I have no interest in college, they could dismiss my disinterest as a defense mechanism. I know that most people will never understand what I'm talking about when I claim that mass education is a tool for creating workers, but at least some intelligent people will read this brilliant speech and know what I am talking about.
I don't care anymore about arguing with the world, I just want to care for myself and my family, but I am glad this woman got a chance expose some truth to her class. I feel for her confusion and fear about missing out on self-discovery for many years of her life, but it is pretty clear that she is on the right path now and I can't wait to see what she goes on to accomplish in the future.
[+] [-] praptak|15 years ago|reply
Reading Edward de Bono has got me convinced that there are several modes of thinking and critical thinking is just one of them. Critical thinking as I understand it means looking for flaws, downsides, logic errors in ideas. It is necessary but it cannot be the only thing that you do - you need to come up with the ideas first.
[+] [-] tommynazareth|15 years ago|reply
I want to thank you for your beautiful articulation of the sad truth that makes mass education painful for so many people.
Unfortunately, school very effectively destroys people's ability to act on the reality you tried show to your classmates and community, but I am appreciative nonetheless because it is better to give the truth a voice, even if it falls on deaf ears. You exposed yourself and embraced vulnerability, and that is the most powerful thing a human being can do.
If you have any pedagogical theories, please share them with the world. I am all ears.
Thank you.
[+] [-] noonespecial|15 years ago|reply
A mind that thinks this has nothing to fear.
[+] [-] aik|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tmsh|15 years ago|reply
If the idea is to maximize innovation and happiness in the world -- it's a little bit trickier than everyone should start rejecting things too cavalierly and promoting their own innovative ability to quote H.L. Mencken.
But that's not to knock the speech at all. I think it's a great part of the conversation about what really is the best way to prepare high school students? And how do we get there? Identification of a large problem is key. A key prick of conscience at the beginning of many large solution spaces.
But if I were to say one thing it would be:
ETA. I really shouldn't joke about 'younglings'. Although there is an argument to be made about appreciating the benefits of any situation (even misguided high schools have enviable qualities and resources, in a certain light). But it's really bad these days. Getting into college is 2-3x as hard as it was a decade ago, just on admissions rates (let alone how that factors into other qualities and explodes exponentially into other headaches). And economic hard times exacerbate things dramatically. In that sense, this speech is increasingly pertinent. It's important to jolt people into a much more focused approach to high school education. But also, in a certain light, I guess what I'm saying is that challenges are what you make of them. It's easy to make speeches as you're leaving. Even if the speeches end on the idea of coming back some day.But the key thing is to solve actual problems.
[+] [-] malkia|15 years ago|reply
Anyhow - I hated school :) and too bad never finished university (too much parties).
[+] [-] _mattb|15 years ago|reply
"Conditioned to blurt out facts" -- "this period of indoctrination" -- "an educational system that clandestinely sets us up for jobs that could be automated, for work that need not be done, for enslavement without fervency for meaningful achievement"
Nuance is important in arguments and creating pathways for dialog even moreso. But maybe that's not the goal of an 'inspirational' graduation speech.. Despite the last paragraph.
[+] [-] stretchwithme|15 years ago|reply
They see successful economies spend lavish sums on housing, so to have a successful economy, subsidize housing.
Intelligent people do well on tests, so raising test scores will produce intelligent people. Never mind that the obsession with test taking make it even a more mind numbing experience.
Are people truly better innovators after going through such a process? We need to study exactly this question. Actually, I would not be surprised if alternatives like the Montessori method have already been proven superior.
[+] [-] jgg|15 years ago|reply
What I worry about, however, are the fools who will use specific criticism of our implementation of education to fight education in the general sense. Every time I read one of these articles, there are inevitably dozens of comments by idiots who don't have any specific criticism of the system at hand, but would rather rail against the idea that learning is important. In fact, conflating the "Platonic ideal" of education with the American school system is exactly the kind of confusion that prevents anyone from making any progress in the first place.
[+] [-] nprincigalli|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] splat|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moron4hire|15 years ago|reply
"Well, you meet people in college!" You'd get a better experience starting a rock band, joining a community service group (or hell, joining the military, it's a similar time commitment and they pay you), all activities essentially free compared to college. If anything, the system of accreditation, the politics of the teacher-student relationship, and the financial concerns of meeting even the most modest tuition rates are nothing but impediments to "expanding ones mind".