Bill Gates Proclaims US High Schools Obsolete

bryan sent us a story about Bill Gates' take on US High Schools. He says 'America's high schools are obsolete. By obsolete, I don't just mean that they're broken, flawed or underfunded, though a case could be made for every one of those points. By obsolete, I mean our high schools even when they're working as designed cannot teach all our students what they need to know today.'"

That's not "obsolete"

[Have Blue]

That's just "broken". Something is obsolete when it is superseded by a superior alternative. I'd be very happy if current high schools were obsolete- it would mean the kids had somewhere else to go that would give them a better education. Sadly this is not the case, so "obsolete" is incorrect.

public schools

[Coneasfast]

i think he is referring to public high schools, which ARE quite horrible in america.

here in canada, we have a 1-tier school system (as well as health btw), all normal schools are public, and it works out quite well. note though: our taxes are very high compared to the US.

waystation

[IAmNotACowboy]

high schools obsolete? well, perhaps. i just sort of saw them as a waystation between middle school and college (always assuming you manage to pick a good one).

Re:I agree!

[nuclear305]

Why, my typing class of course allowed me to type that fast!

Actually I was preparing my reply while it was still in the mysterious future. It's a subject I feel extremely passionate about--some kind of education reform is needed, unfortunately I can't say I have many better ideas.

Re:That's not "obsolete"

[0123456]

"it would mean the kids had somewhere else to go that would give them a better education"

They have: it's called libraries and the Internet. All a school needs to do is teach kids the basics of reading, writing and maths, and the rest they can learn from a good library and net connection.

There is simply no justification for 'public schools' these days: they exist to keep teachers and bureaucrats in cushy, well-paid jobs, not to teach anyone anything (other than to turn up on time and do what they're told, like good little corporate drones whose jobs will be outsourced at the first opportunity to cheaper corporate drones abroad).

Re:I agree.

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Interestingly, Asian education is extremely exam-oriented. We are not forced to do tests daily, or anything of the sort, but we only study material that is related to our syllabus, on which we are examined.

However, the difference as I see it, is that the entire educational structure is planned to teach everything needed to prepare students for tertiary education. As such, the tests are only used to measure a student's performance.

The US education system seems to only have copied the testing procedures of the rest of the world, without understanding how or why it works.

Interesting - only high schools?

[porcupine8]

I really hope they're not planning on just focusing on high schools. How can you increase the rigor of high school so much if a good percentage of the kids coming in are reading below grade level and not even doing pre-algebra?

Look at any math curriculum across the upper elementary and middle school grades - it's so much repetition it'll blow your mind. Kids learn almost nothing new in sixth or seventh grade unless they're in pre-algebra. This kind of thing has got to start a lot lower than high school if they're serious about it.

Bill Gates the great architect of our future?

[Yonder Way]

He also thought that "Microsoft Bob" represented the future of computing, that 640KB of RAM should be enough for everyone, etc. The guy lucked into a fabulous opportunity and held onto it through lies, extortion, establishing a monopoly, and other non-competetive practices.

Yes, the public school system is broken. But I don't have any faith that Gates of all people will have the answer to repairing it.

Learning is More Than Mathematics

[Anonymous Coward]

When you see international assessments of learning across various countries, you soon discover that Chinese students [phrusa.org] outperform American students in areas like mathematics and science. Yet, learning is more than mathematics. The typical graduate from an American high school is more likely to condemn human-rights abuses. The typical graduate from a Chinese high school (including those from Taiwan province and Hong Kong) is more likely to ignore, or even to advocate, gross human-rights abuses [phrusa.org].

Even though the density of Ph.D.'s in Taiwan is much high than the density in the USA, why is the USA a much better place in which to live than Taiwan?

Strangely...

[Roguelazer]

Strangely, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Gates on this one. The High School experience has become that of "7 hours of MCAS [mass.edu]-Prep" here in Massachusetts. Hell, they've dropped World History from the curriculum. Entirely. Gotta love the NCLB act, eh?

Something for everybody

[DanielMarkham]

Gates is right-on.

The public school system is trying to be everything for everybody and has wound up being nothing for nobody. (I love the irony of that last sentence!)

It's not jsut broken -- it is based on a paradigm that is obsolete. No amount of "fixing" is going to work. We must rethink the entire enterprise.

If we continue to manufacture passive students ready for 19th century factory work and then complain about all the factory jobs going overseas, well we got what we asked for -- an outdated workforce.

The new age will be creativity and knowledge-based, and will require students to work in knowledge areas as adeptly as master bricklayers build stone walls.

The Titanic is going down -- we had better stop re-arranging the deck chairs and start building a new boat.

Well, they are!

[tbuckner]

My daughter is in college and she's going to be getting $10 an hour for tutoring high school kids in a method called AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination). It includes 'Cornell note taking' and other techniques. She, and the other tutors, indignantly wanted to know why they had not been exposed to this when THEY were in high school. "I'd have probably gone to Harvard," she told me. That's just one obvious example of how our schools do things much the way they did a century ago, even though we've learned a lot about neuroscience since then. Math, especially, is badly taught here in most schools (rote rule-learning instead of letting kids beat their head against a problem and then giving them the shortcut, a superior approach used in many a foreign classroom). And then there's the funding mess, what with local property taxes and all. Do you seriously think wealthy elites all want the inner-city ragamuffins to get an equally good education and compete for jobs against their own offspring? Why do you suppose those punitive, distracting high-stakes tests are applied to public schools, but not to private/parochial schools nor homeschoolers? Jeepers, the schools here are a headache.

Left hand side of the Curve

[rueger]

"The most blunt assessment came from Microsoft chief Bill Gates, who has put more than $700 million into reducing the size of high school classes through the foundation formed by him and his wife, Melinda. He said high schools must be redesigned to prepare every student for college"

Hmmm. So Bill, what of the say twenty percent of the population who just aren't going to be able to make the grades to get into college? The left hand side of the bell curve so to speak.

Used to be that those folks would train for a trade or even go to work for a manufacturer or similar employer where loyalty and hard work would make up for a lesser intelligence.

Whoops - those jobs have been shipped offshore.

What of the twenty percent of the population who might have good enough grades to get into a college, but who can't afford the tuition or the loans? Sure some folks can work two jobs and attend college full time, but that's not possible for every student in the country.

Bill, before offering half baked solutions to the "education problem" try to think of one that takes all of these people into consideration.

Re:Learning is More than Mathematics

[porcupine8]

What makes you think that American students are more likely to condemn human rights abuses? That article about Tibetans didn't say a word about American students' views.

The fact is, they seem pretty willing to give up their own rights [cnn.com]. Yes, education is more than math - but that doesn't mean we're doing a better job at any of the rest than we are at math.

Re:I agree!

[wheelbarrow]

I agree somewhat but we must tread carefully if we are going to overhaul things. Your main point seems to be an objection to any classes that were not 'relevant' to your area of specialization. I'll admit that there were classes that I hated because I was not interested in the topic and I objected to surrendering my time and energy to some idiot professor who could demand work from a captive audience. However, some of my fondest memories are of general education classes in literature, philosophy, and history.

There is a danger that people will miss these useful general ed classes if we track kids into a specialty too early. I have a friend who was tracked into math and computer science in the British education system. From age 16 onwards he never took any class that was not 'relavant' to specialized match and computer science. He missed all of those experiences I loved in taking some general ed as a more mature 21 or 22 year old. I also think it is limiting and mistaken to track kids too early because a lot of kids simply are not mature enough to choose a track when they are still teenagers. I was a late bloomer. I did not choose computer science until I was 20. If I was too deeply tracked at 16 I would have been wrong and miserable.

Our education system must produce thoughtful and contemplative adults. I think there are a lot of people that just want universities to crank out trained worker bees at age 22.

Re:I agree!

[The Step Child]

What was your major? At most US universities, the number of credit hours you spend on electives is usually a very small fraction of the total number of hours you need to graduate if you're working toward a BS (BAs spend about half of their time on electives). Most of them are finished during your first and second year, and by your third year all of your time is spent on courses completely relevant to your field.

And in the end, your degree probably helped at least a little in getting the job you have now, granted it wasn't everything.

Re:I agree!

[AthanK]

I think college was definitely worse than high school. I learned more during the last two years of high school than I did during all of college. If anything, I believe high school needs to teach kids that it is up to them to educate themselves, and that they cannot rely on classes or college to really prepare them for even 10% of life.

I see people graduating from college with the attitude, "Finally...I don't have to learn anything more." Instead, they should be thinking, "I know how to teach myself whatever is necessary." It's all about changing the attitudes and empowering people to be personally responsible for their education and future.

Re:That's not "obsolete"

[rekenner]

Indeed. Those truly motivated CAN learn things outside of school. My school doesn't offer programming courses. So what am I doing? Taking classes online through the state's online course program. Hell, aside from slashdot breaks, that's what I'm doing right now.
If a one wants to learn, they can; regardless of if the person is in school or not.

However, the average student would not devote nearly as much time to learning.

Not the school's fault.

[Krankheit]

It is the fault of the students. Even my private school has had this problem. I have excelled in all my classes and received high honours. However, 85% of the students get poor grades that are not honourable. And it is all their fault. Their mindset "chemistry is boring, and math is too hard" is their own fault and they don't deserve an education if they don't even care about learning.

Drop Out?

[nixdorf_]

Why should we listen to a college dropout talk about the importance of education?

I agree that it is important, but what makes a college dropout an authority on education?

Re:Left hand side of the Curve

[porcupine8]

You're absolutely right. Not to mention the fact that if somehow they did get it to where every student went to a four-year college, then a college degree would mean as much as a high school diploma does now. Then we'd have a whole new set of politicians saying that we need to prepare every American for a master's degree... Eventually, we'll be a nation of students, getting several PhDs apiece and not entering the work force til we're 30-35. You'll need a bachelor's to work at McDonald's, but if you ever want to make Assistant Manager you better work on that MBA!

(Sez the girl finishing her Master's and getting ready to start a PhD program in the fall... *sigh*)

Re:That's not "obsolete"

[tehshen]

You sound like someone with a serious grudge against the education system. I wonder what it is.

Leaning stuff from books and Internet is boring. Learning stuff from a teacher with other pupils can be fun. I have been reading Dive Into Python for about two months, and although I could probably complete it all in a day I am only about a third through, because I get bored and play some games instead. However, I have been doing maths for about 13 of the 16 years I have been alive, and I enjoy it. All taught by a teacher, with other people.

Not to mention you do not make any friends.

If learning from library and Internet is so good, why are schools still here?

Re:I agree!

[psifishdot]

HS was fun and I did enjoy a select few classes but for the most part everything else was a waste of time generally designed to prepare students for the years ahead... In my opinion college was even worse.

Maybe you should have gone to a tech-school instead of college. A university is not a vocational school. Computer science, for instance, is the science of computation. At its best it is essentially applied mathematics. However, many people think that it is Java/C# vocational training. Herein lies the problem. Universities should be teaching people to be well-rounded in their knowledge and be able to apply diverse areas of knowledge to solve problems. Notice the trend over the last decade or so to multidisciplinary programs, such as bioinformatics. However, most undergrads resist being well-rounded and just want to 'get a job' after graduating. Maybe they should be going to tech-schools rather than universities. Then maybe universities could stop wasting their time training employees and concentrate on training problem solvers.

College is NOT A TRADE SCHOOL

[blueeyedmick]

Several commenters have indicated that both High School and College were worthless because they were forced to endure non-technical classes that were outside their major fieldof study. Too freakin' bad! College (at least, a good college) is not supposed to be a trade school that teaches you how to be a Linux system admin - it's supposed to teach you a broad knowledge base that will help you to write, to read, to learn and to live. If you wanted to get a certificate as a sysadmin, there's non-college options for that. That being said, I'm just as annoyed by Gate's statement that everyone should be going to college after high school. Get real! Not everyone needs to, wants to, or has the ability to make it through a 4 year college. What the US needs it not necessarily more college graduates, but rather a better (and more widely accepted) technical school alternative. Then maybe the folks that are posting about hating college wouldn't have felt compelled to go there in the first place.

Re:I agree!

[Flamingcheeze]

In my opinion college was even worse.

I Absolutely agree. I attended a very prestigious science and engineering school which cost way too much, and I regret it every time I write a student loan payment check.

I believe we should try going back to old-fashioned apprenticeships, wherein a young (wo)man goes to work for someone in the field they wish to persue. They would actually get paid for learning, instead of the opposite. They would also be able to learn if their chosen field was not for them, with very little penalty. The way it stands now, a kid can drop $100K on college, and then start work only to find that the career path they've chosen holds no interest for them.

I highly recommend reading a great article on this subject by Gary North: Why the Job Market Is Slanted in Favor of College Graduates [lewrockwell.com]. See if it doesn't challenge some of your opinions on the value of a college education...

Related essay by Paul Graham

[squarooticus]

I can't more highly recommend this essay by Paul Graham [paulgraham.com] as an explanation of why public schooling is so poor. Don't be misled by the title of the essay: that's just the perspective he takes on a more extensive problem.

Unfortunately, Gates doesn't see the real problems: he's right in that public schools don't tailor their education to what students actually need, but he doesn't for instance address the problem of overcredentialling, which is a result of the perception (and, unfortunately, the reality to a large extend) that a degree is necessary to be successful, combined with the fact that most colleges sell degrees, *not* educations. That's somewhat ironic, considering Gates himself has earned no degrees.

Additionally, follow Gates' suggestion to make high school universally more preparatory for college, and you'll see college become as pointless and as irrelevant to success as high school, because more people will go to college without any reason better than "I need a degree in order to get a good job," which will water down the meaning of a college degree as most of those people will spend an additional four years drinking and delaying adulthood instead of learning something useful through a more efficient means (e.g., apprenticeship) that will enable them to get a good job.

You can already see this process happening to a certain extent, as masters' degrees and professional certifications are required to get certain jobs simply so recruiters can cut down the number of resumes they need to sift through, despite the fact that the smartest ones aren't necessarily the most credentialled.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of the education racket: high school should be sufficient for 90% of people to get jobs, but it isn't; so most of these people go to college. Unfortunately, college doesn't prepare kids for jobs either, but instead provides a place for them to socialize while forcing them to take numerous courses unrelated to their eventual job in order to get a liberal arts degree that costs a lot but signifies absolutely nothing except, "I went to college and that other guy didn't, so give me the job instead of him."

I paid $130,000 to get my undergrad degree. I had a great time in college, but how much of that crap do I use today? I certainly didn't learn software engineering in college courses, despite being a computer science major: most of my software engineering skills were honed doing my own projects, in HS, college, grad school, and in my job. If it weren't for the education racket, I might have been able to save myself $130,000 and get a real paying job four or five years earlier. Think of the productivity that's being wasted.

Re:I agree!

[rk87]

One thing that pisses me off that in 12th grade, in "Advanced" classes, I am being taught things for the 3rd or 4th time that I have been taught many years ago. Often, I am not even taught more about the subject, sometimes even less. I believe this is caused by the fact that education simply takes too long.

I think everything I have learned in high school, and this would include the things I'm going to learn in my following last few months, I could have learned in 4 years of applied studies.

I can't think of a reason why it should be a requirement for me to take an Art class if it is not my goal or talent to be an artist. Why should I be forced to take a foreign language when I never plan to leave the country? (I actually believe the world should have a single spoken language, but thats another topic).

What is the point of such involved lectures about obsolete history? I am in full support of learning about relevant items in History but there is no reason for everybody to know the birthday of some random unimportant vice president of long ago, while they pay no attention to applying the important facts of history (the _CAUSES_ of the wars, the resolutions, and why they caused more wars, etc.) to how things work today and how they don't yet shouldn't, and how you can apply it to make life better for yourself and others.

Why would I, in math class, learn about factoring polynomials equally in 8th grade, 9th grade, 10th grade, 11th grade, 12th grade? I am not exaggerating - the teachers taught equally every year the same exact materials on that subject. Learn it once, remember it.

English class should be teaching me Grammar, styles, poetry, but not how to extract senseless unintended meanings of random ramblings which are only deemed poetry because it seems to have a "hidden meaning" and lots of metaphors. I would never use that in life - the only time I would ever is if I was becoming an english major or something, and even that might be doubtful.

The only classes I can't complain about content is my science classes, except for of course once again all the repetition of what is taught. Of course, not all the science that is taught should be taught to somebody who does not intend on doing something related to science.

A basic CORE knowledge can be established in 4 years or less. That includes all the rules of grammar, the basics of math and practical applications in everyday situations, a basics in sciences, a ground foundation in history and HOW IT APPLIES TODAY, a brief introduction to economics and government (not as ridiculoudly verbose as now), as well as brief instruction on common things you need to know to live, such as how to wash clothes and cook simple foods. After that, go right away to "college", but start at a much lower level to be taught only the requisites for your field or group of fields.

Re:I agree.

[The Step Child]

Teachers and administrators might be in a bind, because the public sees this problem of "failing schools", and the way they fix it usually goes like this: give school more money; give tests to make sure said money is working. If test scores come back low, then school failed; therefore, public education is failing, and money gets taken away. Educators seem to be under intense pressure to make sure that these test scores are high, and many districts (like yours, maybe) are willing to clear everything else off of the table to ensure that these scores are high. They know that if "they" fail, the media will know immediately, and throw up a nice spin story about how the schools are failing (or a common one, are below every other district in the state).

The irony is that many of these tests are written by half-wits. I don't know if any real research has been done on this, but the rumor is that if one were to dissect one of these "tests", it would be full of ambiguity and inaccuracy. Many times, in the practice tests, the teachers won't be sure why the correct answers are what they are.

But I digress. For every person out there that wants to get rid of these tests, there are two more that want *more* tests to "make sure that the public school isn't failing - again".

Re:The problem is such a wide range of students.

[The Desert Palooka]

HS education in US is a JOKE!

Yup, it seems instead of doing things like teaching kids material hard or not it's more about being reassuring and making the kiddies feel good. Don't like math, makes you feel stupid? We'll make it easier.

Then on top of that teachers have had their teeth extracted in the class room. Parents don't care and when you say their children are basically disruptive idiots (said better than that of course) the teacher gets called out because little Jonny's an angel. I have a friend who teached in the inner city for years, and she said it was terrible because you couldn't do a thing to stop the kids from doing what ever they wanted; even in gradeschool. Call their parents, you get met with disinterest or screaming, spank the kid at school and you get fired/sued.

To me a lot of the school's problems are much deeper than just the material (which is dumbed down to the nth degree, heck, I read a 2nd grade primer from the 1800s once and there questions I had a hard time answering in it) being taught, I think there's a problem in society. But don't tell parents or kids they have a problem, you might make them feel bad...

Re:That's not "obsolete"

[lukatmyshu]

Can you seriously say that libraries and an internet connection can offer the same breadth of understanding that a real-live person can? I can't think of many people I know who would be able to simply google articles on calculus and understand it to the same extent that spending a lot of time in class and doing homework would. Don't get me wrong ... I got an A in a history class (in college) once purely because I googl-ed the study guide the night before the midterm and the final. But my efforts to do that for other types of courses has been less than impressive.

Many of you are missing the point about HS!!!

[ip_freely_2000]

High school does teach us a number of important lessons, but not ones that are immediately apparent:

1) It exposes you to a wide variety of subject matter, so you can decide what you like or do not like. Sure, English Lit sucked. But since you've taken it, you know from personal experience that you'd rather take Science than Lit.

2) You learn to solve problems. Sure algebra is not relevant every day, but you learned how to analyze a problem. You apply those same learned skills to different problems every day.

3) You begin to learn to deal with people in social situations. Besides what your parents did or did not teach you, you learn friendship, loyalty, respect ( and it's opposites )

There's a lot of learning always going on, and sometimes the tests aren't always apparent.

More pronouncements from self-appointed experts?

[matyas47]

Bill Gates may be fantastically rich, but he's also a college dropout. He's also hardly a self-made man: his family connections and the role they played in making him who he is today are well-documented elsewhere. While I applaud his philanthropy and sense of civic duty, I would like to see what makes him an expert on education. For what it's worth, I hated high school, was terribly bored, and became a good student only in college. I'm currently a PhD student and I teach undergraduate courses. It is true that many students come in lacking what I thought were basic skills (I'm in the humanities, so I'm talking about writing, history, foreign language, critical thinking, etc.) However, one must consider that a far greater percentage of US high school students _do_ go on to some post-secondary education than in most other countries (Canada being an exception). In most European countries, for example, students are tracked from secondary school on. Japanese students take rigorous exams just to get into a pre-college high school. Of course the tradeoff is that a college education costs far more in the US than just about anywhere else, but I think a big part of the reason that so many US university students come in unprepared is that we accept students who probably wouldn't get in if they were in another country. And I don't think that's a bad thing. Some of these students work hard and get a good education. The rest flunk out, but hopefully they've learned something along the way. My other big beef is with standardized test scores. What we really ought to be teaching students is logical, critical thinking, not rote memorization, which is really what standardized test scores measure. And we shouldn't be taking students out of the classroom to take these inane tests. Talk about a waste of classrom time! Education is to a large degree subjective, and you really can't easily quantify it the way these business types would like. Even if you could, comparisons with other nations are unfair, since most other countries test only the top (university-bound) students, whereas the US test all (or nearly all) students. Statistically, this would skew the results nastily.

Re:That's not "obsolete"

[macrom]

There is simply no justification for 'public schools' these days: they exist to keep teachers and bureaucrats in cushy, well-paid jobs, not to teach anyone anything (other than to turn up on time and do what they're told, like good little corporate drones whose jobs will be outsourced at the first opportunity to cheaper corporate drones abroad).

Sorry, I need to smack you down on this one. Do you even KNOW a single person that is a teacher? Have you seen what public school teachers get paid, especially starting out? My sister got a finance degree from Texas A&M 2 years ago and she makes more than my mother who has been teaching 1st Grade for over 30 years. "Cushy, well-paid jobs" my ass. You go teach elementary school for a single day, then move on to Junior High, then High School. I promise you that it is no walk in the park, and at the end of the day your pay is shit compared to the hours you had to work.

Typical day for my mom who teaches in Plano ISD, a rather demanding school district in the Dallas, Texas suburbs :

• Get to work around 7
• Get classroom ready for the day, if necessary
• Kids start coming in around 7:30 (~25 per classroom, 4 classrooms)
• 7:55 - Start teaching
• 11:30 - kids eat lunch. Mom gets about 20 minutes to scarf down her food.
• Recess is somewhere in there.
• Class gets out around 2:45 or 3:00
• Help tutor those kids that are behind (for free, I might add)
• Deal with any parents that have concerns or need to talk.
• Dad brings mom dinner around 5:00, helps her cart out her work to do that night. (She destroyed her left arm about 13 years ago trying to decorate her room for the kids. She fell while hanging stuff on the ceiling)
• Go home, maybe watch the news. Sometimes talk to more parents on the phone.
• Start grading papers, helping with lesson plans, work on stuff for the next day.
• Go to bed around midnight.

Granted, my mother is an INSANELY dedicated teacher. She puts in a lot more time than your average teacher, but she does it because she refuses to let her kids get a lesser education because she puts in less than 110% effort. I have gone to a couple of PTA banquets where they honor the teachers, and I have parents come up to me and tell me how wonderful my mother is and how they wish their kids could still have her outside of 1st Grade. That's her reward. No stock options. No Christmas bonus. No extra time off. Nothing. Sure, teachers get a couple of months off in the summer, but my mom usually tutors or does something else to keep busy. She's completely dedicated to her work.

Oh yeah, all of this for around $50-60K a year. She'll get more if she decides to lead Invent America, Olympics of the Mind or other extra-cirricular activities. She gets a small bonus each month for being team leader. I'm a software engineer and I have always had demanding jobs, but there's no way I could do what she does. The reason : my heart is not in it like her's. And that's what it takes to be a great teacher.

I'm not here to debate the justification for public schools, other than to say 'something is better than nothing', but to stand there and insinuate that teachers have it easy deserves a cock-punch to the person who says it, even if it is a virtual one.

That's not enough, and you know it...

[Svartalf]

If you're gunning for something like learning by rote, then yes, the library and Internet might be a good replacement for schools. That part, unfortunately, won't teach anyone to think for themselves (sadly, neither does the public and most of the other "High Schools"...). The elementary schools can't really teach more than the basics, because most people aren't quite ready for the needed teaching for reasoning things out.

So, what do you do? You try to fix the High School level teaching to emphasise less rote learning and more reasoning education. By this, I don't mean brainwashing the kids to think a certain way- hell, they're doing that right now in the public schools. I mean that they should be teaching them how to learn on their own (sorry, the basics alone won't get you there...) and to be able to develop knowlege without just memorizing things.

Re:I agree!

[nuclear305]

"I'll admit that there were classes that I hated because I was not interested in the topic and I objected to surrendering my time and energy to some idiot professor who could demand work from a captive audience. However, some of my fondest memories are of general education classes in literature, philosophy, and history."

I also agree here, I'm not necessarily against irrelevant courses...the problem here was that more often than not even those teaching the classes took the mentality that what they were teaching didn't matter if it wasn't a primary skill.

I often enjoyed a literature or history class when the course was actually about learning something. I suppose this opens another door...are the teachers just there to collect a paycheck or are they actually interested in teaching something?

I've encountered both types, the ones who actually enjoyed teaching usually had highly interesting classes. Sadly, the majority seems to be situations where the person is just there to collect a paycheck and has no real interest in keeping the attention of the students.

I suppose it would be nice if the life of a student included a slashdot-type tool for moderating the faculty--get rid of the trolls and promote the insightful/interesting.

horticulture

[Anonymous Coward]

You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.

Education does not produce thoughtful and contemplative adults. You can force kids to read Shakespeare all you like, but most of them will still prefer Big Brother and Jerry Springer.

People have inborn natures. Not everyone has it in them to become a leader or a great thinker. Most people only need to be taught to do a job and conditioned to be decent to each other in their personal lives.

If you try to force higher development on people, you'll only annoy those incapable of it, and trip up those capable. Just give everyone space to do their thing. The normal people will have fun, get little jobs for spending money, and become comfortable with themselves. The exceptional people will pursue deeper understandings and develop uncommon abilities. All will live better lives given the freedom to become what is natural to them.

Re:Learning is More Than Mathematics

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question: Are you only the only person who posts this anti-China crap, or are there a few of you?

Re:I agree!

[Coryoth]

I think there are a lot of people that just want universities to crank out trained worker bees at age 22.

I'm rather troubled by that attitude here on Slashdot - there seem to be many many people who view a degree as pointless unless it fast tracks you to a job. There seem to be many people who view High School and University as solely vocational training, and judge the success or failure of those institutions solely by how successfuly they tain you to do a job.

Whatever happened to learning for learning's sake? What ever happened to just expanding your own mind, and your own understanding of the world? That was originally the role of Universities - a place to go and learn. The things you learned at University didn't used to have to have any relevance to practical life, or employment; It used to be acceptable to just go and learn something simply because you wanted to know about it.

Vocational training used to come via apprenticeships, community colleges, polytechnics, trade schools - whatever you want to call them - and they did a far etter job of it than Universities do now because they were unashamedly about vocational training, with no delusions of grandeur, no requirement for research. Their goal was to teach people how to do a job, and how to do it well.

We now exist in a situation where the community colleges and polytechs have aspirations to be universities, and the universities are now expected to be little more than trade schools. Great; now everything sucks!

Worse still, however, is the core change in attitude: now learning is all about fnding a job. Learning is all about your vocation, and not about merely wanting to know. People who wish to know more about the world, simply to know more about the world are people who will always seek out new information, and question existing information. People who don't think that way are precisely those who are inclined to simply believe whatever their told without question. How is it that our society is trending toward the latter cases?

Jedidiah.

Public education is not the purpose...

[stankulp]

...of the public education system.

Its purpose is to provide jobs for members of the National Education Association teachers' union so they can pay union dues to the NEA, so the NEA can in turn contribute to the campaigns of politicians who vote for higher pay for teachers who can then pay higher union dues to the NEA who can then contribute more to their pet politicions who...

This is the only explanation that makes sense when consider that the United States spends on average $9,000 per year per student (a quarter of a million dollars per year per classrom) and half of them can't even read when they graduate.

Re:I agree!

[miskatonic alumnus]

College Education does not equal job training. All of these "fluff" classes are designed to make you a more well-rounded individual, and give you some competence in a variety of disciplines. The reason behind this philosophy is so that you can better see where your special discipline fits in with all the others. For example, it would be dangerous for someone to have a large amount of political power, but be completely ignorant of history. All of the spheres of knowledge intersect.

Re:This isn't Bill Gates

[mankey wanker]

The problem is that there is very little flexibility in the system and we are practically stuck within an economic class from birth - that's for the overwhelming majority of the people in a culture that refuses to even talk about classes because we are all supposedly part of an enormous middle-class (itself often broken up into lower, middle, and upper classes!).

There is no real middle-class, not in the way most people mean it.

What you have to confront is that labor is always made cheap through a series of techniques at the disposal of the wealthy. They love to claim that workers are underqualified - what a great bargaining chip when it comes time to negotiate the value of labor.

By opening up other markets, we haven't discovered a new trade partner for OUR goods, we have discovered another way to utterly devalue the labor we perform in this country, as governed by our economy.

Money is dead people. Overpopulation and automation will force the end of all economic theories as we know them. Star Trek Deep Space Nine was probably one of the dumbest shows ever, but one day they had a time travel episode that I watched and boy did the idea of class warfare and riots strike a chord in me. The approx. date on the show for these riots was about 2020 IIRC. I don't remember any other thing about that show except that I kept thinking to myself that the date seemed fairly accurate.

People cannot keep pointing at the past and say: "All technological advancement has created industries and jobs." Well, that's only half the equation. What about overpopulation? What about when there are 100 candidates for every open position? Or 1,000? Or even 10,000?

Wait for it.

Re:I agree!

[wheelbarrow]

It is very interesting that you admire China for providing specialized vocational training and avoiding educating people to be thoughtful and contemplative. China may have better training in mathematics for a larger number of people. These same mathematicians are willing to lay down for an oppressive central government that does not respect their individual right to self government. These mathematicians would be better off if they also had some background in understanding the rights of man.

Re:I agree!

[Panaflex]

I believe the problem is that *everyone* should have the chance to go to college, but that those who are not interrested should still be able to find gainful employment through a vocation.

The University, by and large, has suffered both in academic excellence and rigour because of this idiotic idea that everybody should go to college.

I used to think it was hugely unfair, that in Germany students are separated into high and low schools at the fifth grade (or so). After years of school myself, and 9 years in the IT field it is apparent that many people are not going for their dream job out of the fear living a substandard existance on minimum wage.

The truth be told, there are more millionaire plumbers than there are Computer Scientists.

How many people love their jobs? The inverted order of society to produce lawyers, computer specialists, doctors, et cetera has created a population of dissatisfied people. Additionally, those who are relegated to "lower ranks" in society feel cheated or failure simply because they didn't accomplish the "gold standard."

If we're serious about improving education I really think that the child's interrest should dictate their career path. The education system should grow around this. Parents should support and challenge their children to achieve their goals.

-Pan

Re:I agree!

[Nicholas Evans]

Whatever happened to learning for learning's sake? What ever happened to just expanding your own mind, and your own understanding of the world?

Because you see, the world is all about money. And spending millions of dollars to get kids to 'learn for the sake of learning' when they are constantly trying to skip out of school just doesn't work. Not only is it a waste of time and money on everyone's part, but it doesn't put food on their tables or pay the rent.

Learning is great, but when we're trying to force it down people's throats when they don't want it, it causes problems.

Vocational training

[qbzzt]

Hi,

I'm rather troubled by that attitude here on Slashdot - there seem to be many many people who view a degree as pointless unless it fast tracks you to a job. There seem to be many people who view High School and University as solely vocational training, and judge the success or failure of those institutions solely by how successfuly they tain you to do a job.

When you're eighteen, if you are at all serious about living your own life, you need vocational training. Learning of learning's sake is great, but you won't have the spare time to learn in the rest of your life if you're struggling to make ends meet.

Universities used to be learning for learning sake when they were mostly populated by the children of the rich and rich, who did not expect to have to work for a living.

Bye,
Ori

Re:I agree!

[Leo McGarry]

I don't think of it as learning for learning's sake, though I think that's probably a valid point of view. I look at it as learning so you can be smart.

Three key premises here. Premise number one: You are not smart enough. There's so much to know, so much to understand, so many ideas to which you've never been exposed. You are not smart enough yet.

Premise number two: The only way to become smart is to learn things.

Premise number three: The best way to learn things is to be taught.

Too many kids today go to school with the attitude that they want to study X so they can become a professional Y. That's a mistake. They need to go to school so that they can become smart, so that they can subsequently become a professional whatever they want.

A smart person should have a favorite poem. A smart person should be able to cook a gourmet meal. A smart person should be able to change his own oil. A smart person should be able to balance his check book. A smart person should be able to understand the law. A smart person should be able to discuss politics. A smart person should be able to appreciate music and art. A smart person should be able to juggle.

It's bad when somebody focuses on one area of study to the exclusion of all others. It's worse when somebody who has become expert in one particular discipline mistakenly thinks he's now smart. Somebody who knows everything there is to know about programming a computer but who is ignorant of poetry or biology or politics isn't smart. At best, he could be described as a sort of self-induced idiot savant.

Re:The faults can be pointed out in a few areas

[Stickney]

This is why people don't hang up high school diplomas -- they don't mean anything. Anyone can sit (or sleep) through regular high school classes and then be accepted to "the Uni"; I know a lot of people who slept through AP/IB classes too, and still did fine. The SAT? That's a joke. It's becoming more and more apparent that the USA doesn't need people who can speak English in their jobs.
As a university freshman who fought in high school to get the best education possible (ie, I took 7, 9, 12, and 12 hours of classes each of my four years, in a 7-hour schoolday), it is very apparent to me that there is no reason for most children to continue even past 8th grade. If we really wanted to improve the quality of education in this country, the best idea would be to let kids who fail fail. Quit protecting America from its own stupidity -- that only continues the trend.

"The disrespect of education and school in general is an ingrained part of our culture."
Why? Because it's not only free, it's guaranteed. There is no way not to get a diploma. That's why I didn't go to my graduation ceremony, or indeed even celebrate. The only good part of being out is that I don't have to deal with quite as many idiots anymore. Where I go to school, people get kicked out for failing more than one class. That's the way it ought to be.

Re:Bill Gates is right

[Pinkfud]

Gates is absolutely right. I found that out in my first college year.

Re:I agree!

[drinkypoo]

we waste too much productivity teaching people things that just don't matter and which they'll forget once they leave the class anyway

The last part of that might be a valid criticism but the fact is that the things they learn do matter. Everything is interconnected, there is no thing in this universe that does not influence every other thing in it however slightly. On an Earthly scale, it is much easier to see that all of these things are connected in a real and positively influential way. The things you learn in seemingly unrelated disciplines either apply directly to one another or at the very least arm you with another way of looking at them.

Ultimately, what you get out is proportional to what you put in. If you think those things are useless, they will be useless, and you will get nothing out of them.

In particular, if we want people to learn, we should make them want to be in school. For some people, learning is enough, but speaking for myself high school was a miserable experience and that kind of ruined learning for me. I have something of a complex about it now and unless I'm doing something for my own amusement I have a tendency to get bored with it. This is why I immerse myself in hobbyism whenever I can - that way I can still improve my skills.

novelty for novelty's sake

[idlake]

[Bill Gates] By obsolete, I mean our high schools _ even when they're working as designed _ cannot teach all our students what they need to know today.

High schools are just a place where students spend many hours with teachers, have their homework and independent study supervised and reviewed, and get evaluated. That's not "obsolete", it simply is the way education works. How you fill those hours, and with what material, is what decides what people eventually know and the skills they get.

The fact that you can't teach students "what they need to know" has nothing to do with the format, it has to do with the amount of knowledge and the limited amount of time. That's why good schools emphasize preparing students for life-long learning, rather than trying to cram every bit of information into their students' heads.

Curriculums need to be redesigned, class sizes reduced, and teachers need to get paid better. But those are incremental improvements, they don't change the fact that it is a good idea to have students go to a school every day and interact with each other and teachers in a structured and planned format.

Gates's attitude towards high school is the same as towards Windows and complex systems in general: make uninformed pronouncements and rush a half-baked solution out into the real world. Twenty years later, after patching up all the problems, he ends up with something that is more or less like the thing he didn't understand in the first place.

Bill: please stop trying to design complex systems or mess with things you don't understand. It worked badly enough for Windows; let's not repeat those mistakes with things that really matter, like education.

What is the purpose of an education system?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

No one's stopping you from taking the stuff or reading about it on your own. But to require every student to get a full liberal arts degree in order to get a job in a specialized area is not simply inefficient, it's idiotic.

I guess that depends on what you think the goal of an education system should be. Is it about more than turning everyone into a productive worker? I think so.

I live in the UK, so my education was fairly general in secondary school (aged 11-16), more specialised in the sixth form (16-18) and then entirely specialised at university (18-21 in my case).

During the secondary stage, I studied not only the fields of maths and science in which I'd later choose to specialise, but also history, English, modern languages, Latin (actually one of the most useful classes I took, notwithstanding the subject matter being "a little outdated"), art, craft, music, and more. This gave me a level of general background knowledge about the world, and an appreciation of what my peers were studying later on. I've found speaking several languages to at least a basic conversational level useful on any number of occasions since, so it's hardly redundant knowledge, either.

During the sixth form, I started focussing on maths, physics and chemistry. This level is the hardest to categorise in the UK; much of the material is beyond what an everyday person would need to know of, say, maths, and the focus is more on preparation for studying a related degree than anything else. It's interesting in its own right as well, of course, even if I never use the knowledge of chemistry I gained there in a job.

Once I got to university, I specialised in maths, and later CS. This was obviously very academic, yet is directly relevant to my chosen profession. Even then, though, it's important to separate this academic training from vocational training. A university course shouldn't be teaching specific tools and today's buzzword techniques, it should be teaching (a) the general knowledge needed to appreciate those tools and techniques, and (b) how to study independently, so you can learn the details of specific areas by yourself later.

It's often said around here that a good programmer can learn a new programming language in a few days, and there's at least an element of truth in that. More importantly, in ten years' time, someone with a good background in the theory and the drive and ability to study independently will still be keeping up with new tools and new buzzwords, while the Java McDegree holders will be wondering what this new language is for, and waiting to be spoon fed over-priced training materials by the commercial entities behind it.

Given what the IT industry has been doing to CS courses in recent years, essentially reducing them to vocational qualifications in buzzword subjects, they are clearly interested in propagating the use of newbie programmers at cheap rates for a few years, then trading them in (firing them) when they get too expense and hiring more cheap newbies instead. From a business perspective, this makes for a pretty good "software construction line", but you're losing the essential higher level of quality, both by neglecting proper training and by giving up your more experienced assets. Ultimately, that sort of behaviour leads to inefficient development processes (one skilled and experienced developer can easily be more productive than three newbies who each cost a quarter as much) and loss of quality (witness the declining performance and security of many modern software projects for obvious examples).

So thanks Bill, but I'd rather you didn't try to convert the rest of secondary education into vocational training from age 10. The education system is there to develop people as human beings and cultivate their skills and interests. There will be plenty of time to learn job skills on the job; save the education system for more important things.

Re:I agree!

[Wavicle]

Is this the same Gary North who had a website (garynorth.com I think) informing everyone that Y2K was going to be the end of civilization because all the computers were going to crash and the situation could not be fixed in time?

Anyway... I skimmed that web page, and I think I totally gave up thinking I should give him some creedence right around this line:

Instead of going to college full time at 18, a wise student will seek employment by a company on a part-time basis and take his college work by examination.

You've got to be kidding me. Challenge all, or even most, or even a quarter of your college courses by examination? I'm trying to envision what kind of braniac could pass differential equations, real analysis, mathematical statistics, computing theory, operating system pragmatics or computer organization by examination. I'm sure they exist, but I doubt the very rare sample of such an individual thinks much of Mr. North's plan.

College *is* largely useless. But I don't think Mr. North has figured out what it is you really get out of college:

* Some professors really suck, and you can't avoid taking their classes. By making it through college you've shown that you can tolerate a really bad boss for at least a quarter.

* 60% of students who start college never finish. The 40% of students who do finish have demonstrated some level of perseverance. Despite all the many distractions that exist at college, they managed to stay sufficiently focused to get the job done. (I don't understand how the parent poster didn't have time to enjoy college life.)

So in to having a well rounded education and a good background in the particulars of one subject, the college graduate has demonstrated to an employer that they are not a complete flake. Sure there are plenty of non-flakes among the non-college graduates. They just don't have the same distribution.

Re:The faults can be pointed out in a few areas

[UserChrisCanter4]

Part of my certification for teaching required me to study the history of public schools in America. Anytime I see this line about "babysitting" trotted out, I shudder. Yes, that was part of the driving force behind schooling in America "back in the day." The instructional methodologies, subjects, structure of the day, etc. is totally different in today's world than it used to be. We've kept the idea of "free public schools," and that's about it. Not coincidentally, the structure and instructional methodologies (with a few exceptions, such as the VoTech paths and less "democratic" emphasis) is very similar in most other countries. Having talked to people who've "been there," I'd need no more than a crash course in local education law to be comfortable teaching my English class in France, Korea, Japan, or Iceland. I do feel like a babysitter sometimes, as I'm sure every teacher does occasionally, but trust me when I tell you that things have seriously changed.

I believe this stems from two roots. The first is the amount of "busy work" a typical student gets. Teachers often put very little thought into assignments and simply say "do these exercises from the book." A student then typically gets a "check" or something that just signifies completion.

I'm not talking about a worksheet here. I abhor them, and they rarely grace my classroom. As I pointed out above, I can't assign an out-of-class reading (say, chapters 1 through 4) and expect it to get done. I teach English. This poses a bit of a problem, and forces me to devote classtime to reading a novel rather than actually studying it.

I'm not sure this is fair. Knowledge is a very relativistic thing. 100 years ago, an education person was fluent in latin, probably french, and had read most of the "great" books.

Of course, they did not know anything about modern physics, information technology, or any of the modern sciences.

Read about where I arrived at that conclusion. This is not about languages and physics, it's about the ablity of the average high schooler to comprehend the verbal and math portions of the SAT, and how significantly that changed in the span of ten or so years. Somewhere along the line, the skillset required to comprehend Geometry-level math and Sophomore or Junior-level English dropped.

That's specifically why I said we'd gotten "dumber" rather than "our intelligence has dropped." The average high school student is probably just as intelligent. They'd probably be capable of learning French, Greek, and Latin while simultaneously reading the "great books" if we decided that that's what they needed. In my opinion, a large portion of our educational difficulties springs not from the school system or classroom itself, but from societal issues that are going to be much harder to change. Situations such as my reading assignments partially demonstrate this. Something significant took place that started telling kids it was acceptable to ignore the work that was sent home, and I don't think it took place in the five hours a week I see them (and believe me, the homework deal is not an issue unique to my classroom). Kids are just as intelligent, but these changes have made our system unable to take advantage of that intelligence. Hence, we've gotten "dumber."

Re:I agree!

[stmfreak]

In my opinion college was even worse. Here I am paying thousands of dollars per semester...

Your parents were also paying thousands of dollars for high-school. Federal, State and Property taxes all send some cash to your local public schools. Here's the beautiful part: You pay whether you attend or not.

Our local levy assesses about $800 per year for our school district on our house based on its property value. As I have children, I actually have an expectation of reaping some benefit from this tax. But consider that I'll easily pay $49,000 over 62 years of working and owning a house of this size into this levy alone... And this is only 30% of their funding!! Am I getting what I pay for from my public schools?

Hardly.

Not only is the pace of education disinterestingly slow, but they teach kids poor techniques for solving problems (I see a lot of guestimation exercises when my children are more than capable of doing the math). They also fail to explain or "teach" concepts to our children. This is where parents have to step in for an hour or two per night to help the children understand what is going on.

Now I'm not avoiding being involved in my children's education, but consider the parallel: If you hire someone to do a job and then have to spend an hour or two per day to make sure they are doing the job correctly, what do you do?

I don't know about you, but I'd like to fire them and find someone more competent to teach my children.

And to anyone suggesting I send my kids to private schools, please consider that because of my income level, I'm already paying $150-$200K through taxes and levies to support the public school system over the course of my lifetime. As long as I'm paying that, and our many other useless taxes, I cannot AFFORD private schools.

The new generations

[iONiUM]

Are different. I've seen it through all my friends, and most people who are +/- 5 years of my age (22). The fact is, we love learning. But we love learning about different things, things we like, stupid things.. Sometimes I sit around and read about something stupid (N. Korea one day) for a solid 8 hours for no reason at all. University's environment, and i hear this over and over, is just stifling to creativity. You have to do what they say, you have to do a crapload of work in a very specific area (your major), and you just don't have time to sit in a library or on the internet and learn about random things.

So why do we rush through uni just for a degree? To get a decent paying job that gives us enough free time to do what we want. That's why university sucks, that's why we hate it but need it, that's why everyone bad mouths it. I realize i made some generalizations, so forgive me, i'm just going by what i've seen.

Wow I agree with Bill!!!!

[bblazer]

I couldn't agree more! My wife is a HS english teacher, and even she says the system needs a complete redesign. We are not talking about a refactoring here, but a complete change. We do not give kids the credit and challenges they deserve. The big obstacles are, however, culture, parents, and social economic issues. If mom and dad don't value an education, the kids wont either. If we don't expect more of our kids, they wont expect more of themselves. Additionally, teaching methods are very outdated. There hasn't been significant change and improvement in teaching methods for 50 years. It is the same "lather, rinse, repeat" system. We teach kids to memorize, not learn. We must teach kids how to learn, not be taught.

Re:Left hand side of the Curve

[tempest69]

Hey, what would be so horrible about a four-year degree being the norm? Sure it devalues it relative to society. Look at what it does for society.. sure you'll still have the dropouts, but if the chick at McDonalds is a microbiologist your burger is gonna be a bit safer. if your hotel clerk was an accountant, your probably gonna get your change back. If your mechanics are engineers.... nevermind that might be dangerous...

Storm

Re:That's not "obsolete"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, all of this for around $50-60K a year.

Yawn. I was seriously expecting you to say $24-26k. Your mom is vastly overpaid, so you should stop listening when she whines that she's not paid enough. Nobody is paid enough, not even Bill Gates. Everybody always wants more. Just because the median income here in Plano is around $70k (*) doesn't mean you're underpaid when you're making twice the national median income.

(*: $70,835 according to the census [census.gov])

p.s. I'm an unemployed software engineer living in plano.

Re:freshmen year in college is obsolete

[Cheerio Boy]

So many of the courses required of freshmen are fundamental things a student should have learned in high school or even well before that.

The way I see it is that the freshman year courses are designed to clean up gaps in knowledge left by the previous education system when the student leaves it. That is needed more and more due to our failing primary education system.

If a student actually needs one of those freshmen courses then they have no business being in college.

Sorry to be rude here but - bullshit.

I've known quite a few professionals in the world today who did horrible in the generic, churned-out, cookie cutter classrooms of standard schooling only to soar completely once left on their own to study freely.

Would you take advice from a dropout?

[pben]

The world's richest college dropout complains that High Schools are poor. He went to private schools thirty years ago that his lawyer father paid for. He will be sending his kids to private schools.

What could be done if coporations like Microsoft payed their fair share of taxes? What could be done if they took their power as taxpayers to the school boards saying they are failing? What if Microsoft made it known that they will not invest in a community because of poor schools?

Instead they get tax breaks that shift taxes onto others. They send their kids to private schools. They only look at what will Bill his next billion and let the communities they are in go to hell. They will buy their way out, screw the rest of you.

Most personally relevant

[cfalcon]

Ok, I haven't even read the other sibling posts, but I don't think I'll find one that I agree with more, or that is more personally relevant.

In high school I read lots of science and technical books and whatnot- it was obviously what I was good at.

I did ok in AP courses, and used them to place out of as many "fluff" courses in college as possible.

I ended up with a masters in EE, the whole time minimizng the amount of time spent toward courses that didn't count toward my major. There were exceptions, and I enjoyed the occasional easy course / course that taught about topics utterly unrelated to any job I might be likely to end up with. But overall, I was very focussed on getting out with degrees that mattered.

Getting out of college, I got a job as a software engineer about two years ago. Now, I spent my leisure time reading about things that are not so narrow. Now that I have a car and a house (or rather, am borrowing said items from a bank that I am paying money to each month), I feel comfortable reading philosophy, mythology, and less focussed science texts.

I don't have a problem with being required to take a few noncore classes. I *do* have a problem with the inherent assumption that if the university didn't tell me to read a varied menu, I wouldn't- ever. I don't have the time and money to be the leisured intellectual, but I'm a lot closer now than when I was looking at prices for houses and realizing that without a *good* job fast, I'd be living in a hole- or worse, with my parents.

It would be nice if it were possible to major in art, or history, or *any* of those "soft" majors and not have to be immediately faced with "you may either know about your major, or you may live a normal life". It would be nice, basically, if we didn't have to work so hard, especially with our youth. There were two types of people who were enjoying their youth: the types who couldn't compete and knew it, and the types who didn't need to compete, and knew it (above average family finances would provide enough of a cushion for them). This is a lot of the people, mind you.

Most of my friends are still living with their parents, or they and their SOs have purchesed a place together (the necessity of a two income family is kinda scary).

Do we really have to work that hard? Is there really not enough to go around?

Re:I agree!

[David Rolfe]

So hats-off to The Apprentice for fostering another generation with these illusions. :-D

Showing 20-somethings eating caviar and cruising around in private jets is really just propagating the myth. And that's without the cult of celebrity.

The American Dream is alive, but its image has been skewed. Everyone can still work hard and have a good life but we (as a country) need to re-center on what that good-life is. You know, like push it back to the Levittown days or something, where a man could be happy with one car, one wife, one hundred-thousand-dollars, and one job that he liked for the rest of his life. The common belief that you have to be a millionaire (billionaire?) to be happy is poisoning our whole culture.

Re:Left hand side of the Curve

[Citizen of Earth]

Then we'd have a whole new set of politicians saying that we need to prepare every American for a master's degree... Eventually, we'll be a nation of students, getting several PhDs apiece and not entering the work force til we're 30-35.

I think it's inevitable that people will need an advanced degree in order to get a good job in the future. Westerners will need more and more means to justify our bloated paycheques compared to the rest of the world. People without advanced degrees will only be eligible for jobs that cannot be performed overseas, such as flipping burgers or sweeping floors.

--Dr. Citizen O. Earth

Re:I agree!

[mo^]

Just maybe people from differing societies place different values their own "individual right to self government".

I'm not saying it is so, but differences societally, philosophically, culturally and to a small extent genetic probably develop different drives in a population.

But various revolts in China would indicate people do wish to drive their own future, but this needn't necessarily be on the terms we judge to be right.

Re:I agree!

[justin12345]

"Whatever happened to learning for learning's sake? What ever happened to just expanding your own mind, and your own understanding of the world? That was originally the role of Universities - a place to go and learn."

Probably died off right about the time tuition began increasing at several times the inflation rate. Education in the US now has to be viewed as a financial investment, and so there really isn't any room for it if it doesn't produce a financial return.

I graduate in 2002. I had a ton of scholarship, but I still graduated with about $16,000 in dept. This wouldn't be unreasonable if it wasn't for the fact that I was studying fine art; my roommate was $50,000 under when he graduated and his was the more typical case. I could afford a frivolous education because I received some of the most prestigious scholarships offered, one which was actually awarded by President Clinton in person. 99.999% of the population cannot receive such treatment under our current system.

My example was about art, but it also applies to english, history, philosophy, etc. If we continue in this fashion, I firmly believe that our culture will suffer (if it hasn't already). I don't know if socialized education is the answer or not, but I think its something the country should consider.

Doh!

[Devil]

Doh! I hit Enter and sent this anonymously by accident. Allow me to sum up.

Bill Gates is absolutely right; schools in America are thoroughly broken. Our kids are getting dumber every year. Meddling parents, an advancement-only society, overtesting and reduced arts programming are combining to ensure that our kids learn less and less every year.

Other ways to learn

[Jon-o]

Since when was a school supposed to teach everything one needed? This is a very new idea - until very recently, it seems that "everything you needed" was learned outside of school, at your home, or a workplace (as an apprenticeship, etc...) School was, and to some extent still is, the place to learn academic subjects - those that, by definition, you don't really "need" for life. They certainly are good to know, but it's a different kind of learning. The concept that all your life and career skills would be taught in a school like this is, to be honest, a little bizarre.

Re:That's not "obsolete"

[Ragica]

You miss the point. I'll agree that the pay seems slightly high in this case. I also have an "insanely dedicated" mom who is a (primary) teacher. You'll be pleased to know she makes nowhere near the amount of the previous poster; though the rest of the description is fairly similar (except that my mom's was a single parent, so has to do it all on her own, and took some years off from teaching to run her own business and other things before going back into the profession).

The point, as I see it, is that a completely ignorant crack was made about value of the work done by these professionals. These people do real work; something that your comments lead one to think that probably you could not imagine on your deepest, darkest, heaviest unemployed day. I'll bet that yawn you so laboriously exhale above tuckered you right out for the day. Best get a snack and take a nap... maybe surf some porn to help you relax and forget about all these terrible leaches of society.

The evidence that such ignorance abounds, such as yours, may be evidence that the education systems are indeed not accomplishing to their full potential. And I certainly have no love whatsoever for highschool. However, I also have first hand knowledge of how teachers are pathetically maligned by twits, and how many of the teachers I know know (or have some idea of) what needs to be done to fix things; but there is indeed a horrific bureaucracy which thwarts many of their efforts: that bureaucracy is generally the government, and political interests whom never cease using public education (and the funding thereof) as their football or whipping post... and people like you who spew ignorant crap you no doubt picked up out from their ignorant machinations.

Yeah, I'd vote for the cock punch in this case too. But what's the use, except for the personal satisfaction on behalf of my mom. But, alas, my mom would never condone it.

Re:Most personally relevant

[Omestes]

There were two types of people who were enjoying their youth: the types who couldn't compete and knew it, and the types who didn't need to compete, and knew it (above average family finances would provide enough of a cushion for them). This is a lot of the people, mind you.

Then there are people like me, who could compete, and then realized that they could go to school for knowledge, and got sidetracked because it is more interesting than a trade. Competition is overrated, I will never sacrafice my integredy for the ability to compete. Sure, I might make slightly less money than you, but I figure I'll be a slightly more whole person than someone who just wants to go to trade school.

Sadly, as I think the gp pointed out, our uni's are aspiring to be mere trade schools, which sucks for all of those who really want to learn.

Re:I agree!

[Facekhan]

Learning for learning's sake?

If I wanted to do that then I would probably just read a book. Very few subjects require formal instruction spread over a semester or a year or several years. Formal education was not created for the person who wants to learn it was created for the person who is to be made to learn.

A motivated individual could probably go through all basic math from arithmetic to algebra 2 and geometry in a couple of months a couple hours per day. Your basic average kid could do it. It has been done. As for writing and reading, I think people would read a lot more if they were not forced to read when they did not want to or were too young to appreciate it or did not like the book. Writing ability comes from having read a lot. If you read a lot you will be able to write. Schools mess that up too. Most people, including many highschool teachers could not compose an essay that would pass muster in a college freshman's composition course. The reason is that the school system teaches one completely nonsensical method of writing and then a year later they learn another rigid method they learn to hate and another and another until the thought of writing an essay or even a paragraph makes them cringe. College composition is simple. There is one rule, no errors allowed. You can write anything you want to as long as your commas and spelling are correct. You do not need to write a "five paragraph essay" or have a "topic sentence" or a "concluding paragraph" or any of that ridiculous crap that they taught me in school.

I am not a big fan of college. I am a senior and I really would rather be working. As far as I am concerned most colleges are a joke because they have been dumbed down by an administration that takes the educational mission of the school for granted and only cares about their job perks, their fundraising, and their obscene salaries. The students are mostly intellectually lazy people who have been trained to be that way by years of formal schooling and only see learning as a way to get the piece of paper so they can get a good job, so they can get money, so they can buy things.

Mostly, I pissed because I suffered through all that school and college was supposed to be my reward for actually being interested.

Oh yeah. Most people cheat at most colleges by the definition of cheating that I was taught. So to all those people who say getting the degree matters? What does a degree mean if the reality is that most people cheated to get it and it was more about handing over a hundred thousand dollars than actually learning or studying anything.

Re:I agree!

[Wavicle]

Okay, China only oppresses 1.3 billion of its own people. Tibet? Oh, people annexed against their will don't count.

How many people are "oppressed" by us wicked Americans?

Is American oppression on par with Chinese oppression? How many internal organs of Iraqis have we sold on the black market exactly?

Re:I agree!

[cgenman]

I can't tell you the number of times I've spoken to a programmer who needed to know a bit of economics, or a designer who desperately needed a bit of literary theory, or an artist who needed a clue about how computers function.

If you're going to be a doctor, that's fine, go be a doctor. But part of being a doctor is working with computer equipment, so that should be part of your training. And you're going to need economics to understand the functioning of HMO's. And theater to improve your bedside manner. And a good grounding in literature to get through the drama of it all.

The same can be said for pretty much any profession. I would say that too many kids go to school with the attitude that to become a professional Y they just need to study X. Profession Y is not a known, completely quantized thing, and to be a good professional Y first you need to be good at being a human being.

In other words, chances are if you hated something in college, that's exactly the thing you should study. Whatever it is, it's going to bite you in the tail down the road if you don't master it now.

Re:The new generations

[Coryoth]

How much of the constraints in University are about providing pieces of paper and proof of ability for purely vocational purposes though? I mean really, all a University is doing is offering a variety of courses that you can choose to do if you find them interesting. The whole deal with the degree, associated course requirements, the examinations and assessments etc. is all largely about providing prospective employers with a nice checklist. If universities managed to free themselves of their vocational training aspects a little more I think you would find them much more to you liking.

A place where you can go: to be with other people interested in learning; to have access to a wide variety and depth of material (the internet, for all its breadth, fails to offer equivalent depth in any subject to that of a good university library); a place where people with knowledge, experience and interest (their prime job is purely research) provide courses in subjects.

There is nothing wrong with trade schools when you simply want to learn a trade, or how to do a job, and those qualifications should not be looked down on as (for some reason) they are now. That shouldn't stop a person from also wanting to attend an institution that is solely about learning, and not interested in vocations etc. That is part of the current issue with Universities.

Jedidiah

Re:I agree!

[Coryoth]

If I wanted to do that then I would probably just read a book. Very few subjects require formal instruction spread over a semester or a year or several years. Formal education was not created for the person who wants to learn it was created for the person who is to be made to learn.

I think you'll find that's fairly person and subject dependent. I am currently taking a course for which I could simply be reading the book - why am I taking the course? Because the subject matter is very hard, and the book very terse. Having someone who does understand the material well provide further explanation, alternate ways of looking at things, and just generally more detail, does make it much easier to learn.

If we're talking about a lot of high school level material, then yes, a lot of people can simply get by reading about it. The principle of university is to be providing instruction in material that is hard, that is currently at the edge of research (universities are primarily there to provide research to begin with), and thus benefits from being taught. No, not all courses at universities actually fit that - that doesn't mean universities are worthless, merely that some courses are rather poor.

A university, originally, was supposed to be a place of learning; a place where like minded people could congregate together, collect and share their knowledge and explore and seek new knowledge. Courses, as offered by universities, are supposed to be an opportunity for a person wishing to learn to gain expert instruction in cutting edge subject area.

You say that if I want to learn something I should just read a book? Currently I am learning about analytic pro-p-groups, and Lie p-rings. Which book should I "just read" to learn that easily without formal courses? Where, exactly, am I expected to find that book? I'll lay odds my local library doesn't have it - my university library might, but that's back to the point of universities providing a collection of knowledge and a place to learn.

Jedidiah.

Re:...well said...

[Anonymous Coward]

confiscated a knife from a student last week

Was he trying to stab or cut you or someone else with it?
No?
Then what the fuck are you complaining about?

stopped a couple of guys from kicking and punching each other 2 days ago during lunch

Typical shit, at least you aren't a cop where those people would probably have guns and wouldn't be afraid to hurt/kill you.

walked through a hallway full of marijuana smoke yesterday

It's a LOT better for you than cigarette smoke. You should be thankful.

documented appalling graffitti on a locker bullying a girl who uses the locker

Ooooo! Spray Paint! Fucking SCARY MAN.

received an essay from a young woman who implied that she had been abused since grade three

Welcome to the real world, best to get desensitized to it sooner rather than later.

High School is a war zone, has been since the 70s, possibly earlier. Best get fucking used to it and start preparing for the worst.

Re:I agree!

[Facekhan]

That is what I am saying as well. Universities were never meant to be just another stop on the road. They were meant to be for research and teaching the edge of whats known by professors who are among those few who understand the material well enough to explain it.

That is not what college is today. Its basically everything you should have studied in highschool but were never offered a choice. And for those of us who actually learned some of those things in highschool we are stuck taking classes that are supposedly college level but are really just filler so they can justify us being there for 4 or 5 years. Part of the problem is the ever shrinking part of the college curriculumn that consists of electives. The more required (usually more difficult and boring) classes added to the degree programs the longer it will take to graduate. Taking 12 credits and a fun elective for 15 or 16 credits is a lot different than taking 16 credits of boring, core degree requirements. I got screwed because I transfered into a school that requires you take all your general core classes from them and they are actually easier and worse than the classes I took at community college.

My only academic challenge since I transferred to a university was when I left last year to work and attend Cisco academy.

My younger brother will be in 9th grade next year and he had to fill in his form for his choice of electives. He couldn't decide. I knew what his problem was. He had never been offered a choice in his entire academic career. His peers couldn't decide either. The idea of choosing to take a class in something you might be interested in or curious about had never crossed their mind.

Re:I agree!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post drips with the kind of academic elitism rarely found outside a career student or tenured professor. Most importantly, the things you equate with "smart" clearly fall under the realm of knowledge and ignorance, not smart and stupid.

A smart person should have a favorite poem? I despise poetry...am I stupid?

A smart person should be able to cook a groumet meal? How's the view from up there? I prefer barbecue and couldn't care less about "gourmet"...am I stupid?

A smart person should be able to discuss politics? Discussing politics involves wasting time keeping up with pointless soundbites. Fortunately, I can can discuss politics so my stupid score dropped a bit.

Appreciate music and art? Who's music and who's art? Are you going to define that for us, too?

A smart person should be able to juggle? Reflexes and practice, dumbass.

A Slashdot poster who profers a definition of smart based on his/her own knowledge is nothing more than an arrogant prick...the kind that made college nothing more than an annoying waste of time to get a piece of paper. The fact that you were modded insightful and supported with follow-up posts is very disappointing.

btw - I tend to agree with Gates on this issue.

A related quote....

[ziggy_zero]

from Buckminster Fuller, in 1972:

I think universities are completely obsolete. I think they're having these troubles because they're supposed to be eliminated. There's very little that goes on at a university that can't be done better otherwise. The biggest raison d'être for the present system is the security of the professor. He's got tenure. Has anybody else got tenure? Hell, no. Those tenure boys are really a shame; they're so businesslike, they really look out for themselves.
Once you eliminate the obsolete structure and the emphasis on earning a living, people will go to the university because they want to use themselve and explore their wonderful capabilities. Humanity will carry on beautifully if you don't mix them up with earning a living. We'll make wonderful use of those buildings and all that equipment. That's what the tenure boys are so scared of. They've been living on the idea of monopolizing the information, but now they see the time coming when the big idea ill be to proliferate it and try to see that everybody gets to share it.

Re:That's not "obsolete"

[Triones]

Leaning stuff from books and Internet is boring. Learning stuff from a teacher with other pupils can be fun.

Only true if you're not smarter than your teachers.
I'd say this is not case for most slashdotters.

Re:Bill Gates is right

[Anonymous Coward]

As evidenced by your completely incorrect use of "misnomer"...

More than most know...

[fbg111]

Our high schools have long been designed to provide worker bees, and some argue this is deliberate... [deliberate...ngdown.com]

Re:There is no such thing!

[Loundry]

Personal enjoyment.

That's not learning for learning's sake. That's learning for the sake of enjoying oneself. I maintain: education is never the goal in and of itself. It's always a means to an end. In this case, it's fun.

Which is a great reason for education, in my honest opinion.

Buh.

[SuiteSisterMary]

I've long said that the western Education system needs an overhaul, that University needs to be relegated back to being the place for MDs, Lawyers and Engineers, that trades/appreticeships need to be given more legitimacy and pride, and so on.

But three simple course additions to the current system would improve things, I think: logic, debate, Latin.

Logic: So many kids going through public school actually knows how to think anymore. Elementary logic simply is NOT being taught.

Debate: See above, then tack on that so many people seem unable to actually discuss or debate a difference of opinion; only to state theirs, then attack viciously anybody who disagrees.

Latin: Mainly I think this would help produce better English speakers. Hard to think and debate when you can barely speak the language correctly.

Learning for learnings sake?

[Cervantes]

In reply to the umpteen posts arguing that courses unrelated to your specialty are useful, I say this:

Yes, they are useful and valuable.

No, I shouldn't *have* to spend 30,000 out of my 40,000 student loan on unrelated courses so I can get a degree that says I took the other 10,000 worth of courses.

At this rate, I will explicitly discourage my children from going to college, because it's not worth hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt. Learn your job on the job, learn your language and culture and classical literature because you want to, and don't be stuck in debt till you're 40. Life is to be lived, and we all seem to be losing track of that. We're all more interested in how much we can borrow and how long we can take to pay it back. In almost all cases, I'd rather go without rather than suffer years of debt.