Gen ed problems and future outlook

[Wahoo Redux]

Understood.

Do we have any indication that this is a better system?

It does not matter in the context of this thread.
It shows that if tomorrow students will stop taking elective "general education" courses in the universities, sky will not fall

Well, no one ever said the sky would fall.

We could train people in 2 years or less in their major subjects if our purpose was simply to get people ready for the job world.  No need for pesky breadth requirements.  Society would continue to function.

There has simply been a lot of discussion about retooling education so that secondary ed covers breadth and college is a focused study in an area, as is apparently the case in a great many countries across the pond (noting that there will be differences, of course).

I just wonder if there is anything that indicates this is a better way of systemic organization.

I was not interested in anything but literature, music, and sports as a young guy (and I enjoyed acting).  I would happily have neglected anything not these subjects.  A great many young people think this way.  Are they right?

[marshwiggle]

We could train people in 2 years or less in their major subjects if our purpose was simply to get people ready for the job world.  No need for pesky breadth requirements.  Society would continue to function.

Not in lots of STEM disciplines; there are courses that are in a sequence because they have to be, and that sequence is more than 4 courses long. 5 or 6 course sequences are common.

There has simply been a lot of discussion about retooling education so that secondary ed covers breadth and college is a focused study in an area, as is apparently the case in a great many countries across the pond (noting that there will be differences, of course).

I just wonder if there is anything that indicates this is a better way of systemic organization.

I was not interested in anything but literature, music, and sports as a young guy (and I enjoyed acting).  I would happily have neglected anything not these subjects.  A great many young people think this way.  Are they right?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting; students at some point need to decide on priorities. In the US there just seems to be an assumption of much less maturity in high school than what is expected in other countries.

"The Paradox of Choice" by Barry Schwartz does a great job of explaining how more choice doesn't automatically lead to more satisfaction or better outcomes, even though it seems like it should.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting; students at some point need to decide on priorities. In the US there just seems to be an assumption of much less maturity in high school than what is expected in other countries.

Firstly, are teenagers in other countries more mature?

Secondly, the idea that most teenagers are inexperienced and need direction in our incredibly complex society is a sound idea.

[marshwiggle]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting; students at some point need to decide on priorities. In the US there just seems to be an assumption of much less maturity in high school than what is expected in other countries.

Firstly, are teenagers in other countries more mature?

As many have pointed out, just over 100 years ago, and again 80 years ago, teenagers were sent to risk their lives protecting their countries. Many did so bravely, and with dedication.

People tend to rise (or fall) to the level of the expectations placed on them.

Secondly, the idea that most teenagers are inexperienced and need direction in our incredibly complex society is a sound idea.

Allowing them to figuratively wander around aimlessly for a couple more years hardly seems like a good way to provide direction for them. By definition, if someone needs direction, they need more explicit instructions, not less.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

...
There has simply been a lot of discussion about retooling education so that secondary ed covers breadth and college is a focused study in an area, as is apparently the case in a great many countries across the pond (noting that there will be differences, of course).

I just wonder if there is anything that indicates this is a better way of systemic organization.
...

It is way cheaper for whoever pays for the post-secondary education.

Firstly, are teenagers in other countries more mature?

Based on the legal drinking age - definitely

[Caracal]

In any case, it not just an "individualist" American attitude, but it demonstrates a shocking level of ignorance, both of other systems, and the reality for the vast majority of students in the United States who are permanently disadvantaged by the low quality K-12 education that is a consequence of "decentralization" and funding models that are based on property taxes. For every one student in the US that is able to benefit from the flexibility to not be streamed into an academic vs. non-academic track (as in many European and Asian systems), there are far more whose life trajectory are determined in large part by which zip code they live in. Put another way, the US system is fantastic if you're a rich and privillaged unmotivated kid, who decides to get their act together in later life, but it's worse than the alternatives for most other people.

I'm not sure these things are connected in the way you think they are. The US could have educational systems that aren't funded by property taxes without having extensive tracking. Why would those things need to go together?

[mleok]

In any case, it not just an "individualist" American attitude, but it demonstrates a shocking level of ignorance, both of other systems, and the reality for the vast majority of students in the United States who are permanently disadvantaged by the low quality K-12 education that is a consequence of "decentralization" and funding models that are based on property taxes. For every one student in the US that is able to benefit from the flexibility to not be streamed into an academic vs. non-academic track (as in many European and Asian systems), there are far more whose life trajectory are determined in large part by which zip code they live in. Put another way, the US system is fantastic if you're a rich and privillaged unmotivated kid, who decides to get their act together in later life, but it's worse than the alternatives for most other people.

I'm not sure these things are connected in the way you think they are. The US could have educational systems that aren't funded by property taxes without having extensive tracking. Why would those things need to go together?

It's true that tracking does not have anything to do with how K-12 is paid for. But, it's a common part of centralized systems in contrast to the American "individualist" system, because it is more cost effective, and yields more consistent outcomes. I will speak specifically about mathematics in K-12, where the US system of allowing students to take math classes whenever they choose to makes the process of teaching it far more challenging, because it becomes much harder to build upon prior knowledge when not every student has been exposed to the same sequence, in the same order, at the same time.

[Caracal]

My sense is that the k-12 education system in many countries is far more uniform than in the US, and not surprisingly, it is better funded. Having a higher minimum standard for graduates is viewed as worth the cost.

I would claim that a source variation within the educational system is as important as its level.
E.g. German system explicitly divides middle to high school students into different streams depending on academic aptitude. This means that one needs to be both smart and motivated to get into a university.
Such system is hardly more uniform than US one overall, though "university-bound" stream is definitely more uniform than US equivalent.

It isn't necessarily a system I'd want to see imported even if it was an option. One of the benefits of a decentralized system is that it actually is possible to get a very good undergraduate education almost anywhere which means that being an unmotivated teenager isn't going to necessarily determine your whole life trajectory. That's probably a very individualist American attitude, I know.

This (like legal drugs on another thread) is an example of moral hazard. By lowering the consequences of bad choices, more people will make bad choices. I'd bet there are a lot fewer "unmotivated" teenagers in Germany, and unless someone wants to argue that it's genetic, they're being motivated by consequences. (And even though their brains "haven't finished developing"!!! How is that possible???)

There are cases where moral hazard arguments make sense. (Probably a bad idea to create conditions under which the banks making loans don't really care if people are going to default) There are lots of other cases where they go wrong. (If you make drugs widely available that make it far less likely people will get HIV, they will engage in riskier behavior and there will be more HIV transmission)

There is already lots of pressure on high schoolers to do well and get into good schools, particularly among middle and upper class people. Would systems where students are tracked extensively really motivated people who aren't already motivated by all that pressure?

[Wahoo Redux]

...
There has simply been a lot of discussion about retooling education so that secondary ed covers breadth and college is a focused study in an area, as is apparently the case in a great many countries across the pond (noting that there will be differences, of course).

I just wonder if there is anything that indicates this is a better way of systemic organization.
...

It is way cheaper for whoever pays for the post-secondary education.

How much more expensive for the people paying for secondary eduction?

Or are we going to leave K-12 spending at the status quo?

Firstly, are teenagers in other countries more mature?

Based on the legal drinking age - definitely

That's a nonsensical metric for all sorts of reasons.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting; students at some point need to decide on priorities. In the US there just seems to be an assumption of much less maturity in high school than what is expected in other countries.

Firstly, are teenagers in other countries more mature?

As many have pointed out, just over 100 years ago, and again 80 years ago, teenagers were sent to risk their lives protecting their countries. Many did so bravely, and with dedication.

People tend to rise (or fall) to the level of the expectations placed on them.

Right now teenagers are risking their lives to protect our country.  Perhaps you've heard about it?

And that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.  Dumb.

Secondly, the idea that most teenagers are inexperienced and need direction in our incredibly complex society is a sound idea.

Allowing them to figuratively wander around aimlessly for a couple more years hardly seems like a good way to provide direction for them. By definition, if someone needs direction, they need more explicit instructions, not less.

Why shouldn't they wander around aimlessly for a couple of more years?  Wandering is good.

Who said we should provide direction to them?   I embrace the "individualist" ideal.

Who said we should give anyone explicit instructions on how to live life?  Keep your instructions to yourself.

People have a right to wander.  In fact, I think it is very good to wander.  I certainly never imagined I'd be doing what I am now doing.  It actually kind of surprises me whenever I think about it.

I once met Alan Gilbert, who would go on to be the youngest conductor (and then resign) of the NY Philharmonic, at a summer music camp.  That guy had a trajectory (both his parents played in the philharmonic he would later lead) even back then.  But he is unusual. 

The only problem with wandering is that sometimes students incur debt without a degree----but they are still the ones who made the choice, poorly informed or otherwise.  I think the answer to work to bring down the cost of college, not desolve half the curriculum.

I have no idea what you are on about half the time, Marshy.

[jimbogumbo]

I will speak specifically about mathematics in K-12, where the US system of allowing students to take math classes whenever they choose to makes the process of teaching it far more challenging, because it becomes much harder to build upon prior knowledge when not every student has been exposed to the same sequence, in the same order, at the same time.

mleok: I have extensive knowledge of K-12 mathematics instruction. Could you explain this a little? It's really not my experience. I have over 50 dual credit teachers I directly supervise in 30 systems, and this isn't the case in any of them. There are in fact college-bound and non tracks, and usually two in the college bound. For example, in this state students take Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and then Precalculus. Depending on when they start, many take Calc I and Calc II. Regardless, they are always done in sequence. The bulk of The students take Precalc as a junior or senior.

A growing number of schools are offering a QR or Finite course, but that is almost always after Algebra II. That is really common as I look at offerings all across the Midwest and East.

The problem for many of us public regionals are the substantial number of students who are admitted with nothing after Algebra II and are not at all prepared.

Not really arguing, just seeking some clarity.

[Caracal]

I will speak specifically about mathematics in K-12, where the US system of allowing students to take math classes whenever they choose to makes the process of teaching it far more challenging, because it becomes much harder to build upon prior knowledge when not every student has been exposed to the same sequence, in the same order, at the same time.

mleok: I have extensive knowledge of K-12 mathematics instruction. Could you explain this a little? It's really not my experience. I have over 50 dual credit teachers I directly supervise in 30 systems, and this isn't the case in any of them. There are in fact college-bound and non tracks, and usually two in the college bound. For example, in this state students take Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and then Precalculus. Depending on when they start, many take Calc I and Calc II. Regardless, they are always done in sequence. The bulk of The students take Precalc as a junior or senior.

A growing number of schools are offering a QR or Finite course, but that is almost always after Algebra II. That is really common as I look at offerings all across the Midwest and East.

The problem for many of us public regionals are the substantial number of students who are admitted with nothing after Algebra II and are not at all prepared.

Not really arguing, just seeking some clarity.

Yeah, isn't math usually the most tracked subject? That was true even at the pretty loosey goose private school I went to. If you stayed on the top track you could take AP CALC senior year. If you were put in the lower math courses as a freshman, there was no way you were ever going to get there.

[mleok]

I will speak specifically about mathematics in K-12, where the US system of allowing students to take math classes whenever they choose to makes the process of teaching it far more challenging, because it becomes much harder to build upon prior knowledge when not every student has been exposed to the same sequence, in the same order, at the same time.

mleok: I have extensive knowledge of K-12 mathematics instruction. Could you explain this a little? It's really not my experience. I have over 50 dual credit teachers I directly supervise in 30 systems, and this isn't the case in any of them. There are in fact college-bound and non tracks, and usually two in the college bound. For example, in this state students take Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and then Precalculus. Depending on when they start, many take Calc I and Calc II. Regardless, they are always done in sequence. The bulk of The students take Precalc as a junior or senior.

A growing number of schools are offering a QR or Finite course, but that is almost always after Algebra II. That is really common as I look at offerings all across the Midwest and East.

The problem for many of us public regionals are the substantial number of students who are admitted with nothing after Algebra II and are not at all prepared.

Not really arguing, just seeking some clarity.

In Asia, for example, mathematics is taught in a prescribed sequence, at a prescribed time, so every student in the class has taken the prerequisite exactly at the same time. While the US may require a sequence of prerequisites, it does not pescribe when it is taken, so even if students have technically taken the prerequsite classes, they may have taken it at different times, so their retention of the material is far less uniform.

[marshwiggle]

Why shouldn't they wander around aimlessly for a couple of more years?  Wandering is good.

Who said we should provide direction to them?  I embrace the "individualist" ideal.

Who said we should give anyone explicit instructions on how to live life?  Keep your instructions to yourself.

People have a right to wander.  In fact, I think it is very good to wander.  I certainly never imagined I'd be doing what I am now doing.  It actually kind of surprises me whenever I think about it.

I once met Alan Gilbert, who would go on to be the youngest conductor (and then resign) of the NY Philharmonic, at a summer music camp.  That guy had a trajectory (both his parents played in the philharmonic he would later lead) even back then.  But he is unusual. 

The only problem with wandering is that sometimes students incur debt without a degree----but they are still the ones who made the choice, poorly informed or otherwise.  I think the answer to work to bring down the cost of college, not desolve half the curriculum.

I have no idea what you are on about half the time, Marshy.

If people choose to wander, that's fine. That doesn't mean the system should be set up to require people to take courses not remotely related to or needed for their major.  I embrace the "individualist" ideal.

[jimbogumbo]

I will speak specifically about mathematics in K-12, where the US system of allowing students to take math classes whenever they choose to makes the process of teaching it far more challenging, because it becomes much harder to build upon prior knowledge when not every student has been exposed to the same sequence, in the same order, at the same time.

mleok: I have extensive knowledge of K-12 mathematics instruction. Could you explain this a little? It's really not my experience. I have over 50 dual credit teachers I directly supervise in 30 systems, and this isn't the case in any of them. There are in fact college-bound and non tracks, and usually two in the college bound. For example, in this state students take Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and then Precalculus. Depending on when they start, many take Calc I and Calc II. Regardless, they are always done in sequence. The bulk of The students take Precalc as a junior or senior.

A growing number of schools are offering a QR or Finite course, but that is almost always after Algebra II. That is really common as I look at offerings all across the Midwest and East.

The problem for many of us public regionals are the substantial number of students who are admitted with nothing after Algebra II and are not at all prepared.

Not really arguing, just seeking some clarity.

In Asia, for example, mathematics is taught in a prescribed sequence, at a prescribed time, so every student in the class has taken the prerequisite exactly at the same time. While the US may require a sequence of prerequisites, it does not pescribe when it is taken, so even if students have technically taken the prerequsite classes, they may have taken it at different times, so their retention of the material is far less uniform.

Certainly true in this state. The topics in each course are specified at the state level. That's really common in all the states I'm referencing. It is true that there is a pretty wide quality difference, but there is really good evidence that there is more within school variation course by course than between school variation. That also hold for universities. I'm citing work per Uri Treisman at the Dana Center at Texas.