Grades vs Education

[JohnCrichton72]

But the issue here is that you are training kids at the K-12 level to attain high grades and not a better education. Don't get me wrong, I understand the value of A-F as far as an evaluation of your level of knowledge, but grades seem far too artificially inflated.

Not really, the system itself is fine. The problem appears to be, if I may be so bold, that teachers have had to much pressure put on them to train children to achieve high grades.

If it didn't matter that half of your class flunked the grade itself would be more sought after, the pass rate is being artificially bloated via dubious teaching methods. You are being asked to do more with less, and they aren't so much asking as threatening your livelihood and turning a blind eye.

The fact that it's normal to teach students how to pass an exam instead of educating shows this. When I first seen it in A level bio chemistry I was heart broken, basically took all of the competitive spirit out of the game. Made trying to get a good grade next to impossible, it just stopped meaning anything.

Worse still the higher up, the worse it gets. People spending the best part of a decade on PHDs............ WHY !?

[Violet]

Practice makes perfect!
That's why you get good at it some 4 years later...

Yes... I totally needed help learning an alphabet I already knew, learning mathematics that everyone already knew (and if they didn't yet, would shortly find out), and... I didn't learn to tie my shoes until I took it upon myself to do so when I was 18 or 19. And then I still wore slippers, because screw shoe-tying.

Everything you learn inside elementary school, you could learn in four days. Except the social day-care aspects of it... of course, not that that bit really did me any good (quite the opposite!).

I'm serious. Take some 10 year olds who haven't been taken to school through a 4 day crash course in beginning mathematics and language mechanics (assuming they actually speak the language they're learning about, otherwise it'll take a good bit more work), compare their ability to perform said mathematics with students who've been doing this since they were 4... and there will be minimal differences between their scores.

Sure, practice, memorization, and familiarity with subject matter can increase one's speed of delivery of said subject matter... but, and this is a big but ( ) : the core understanding of the subject is all the human brain needs to arrive at the correct answers.

[Kayenneh]

That religion enters into it at all about kills me. School also starts MUCH too early. The first 4-5 years of schooling slowly agonize over addition and subtraction (and also multiplication and division), and are primarily memorization-based. All of these things could be, and in my humble opinion should be, covered briefly around the time they are, say, ten. You know... when their brain develops to the point where it is capable of doing each of these things at a reasonable speed?

And don't even talk to me about grammar and general lingual mastery... because even starting them in at 3-6: they're shit at it. I really don't think another 4-7 years of them struggling to do basic tasks is going to do anything for them except cause a strong sense of resentment. I refuse to believe they are actually this stupid.

I have to disagree with you Lil. I learned how to read when I was three, so when I started school (one year earlier than I should have) when I was six, my teacher had to give me the reading material for the third grade in order to give me enough challenge. Though, the whole idea of having to start school at a certain age is quite ridiculous, one should start when one's ready. Age has not necessarily anything to do with it.

[pocaracas]

Though, the whole idea of having to start school at a certain age is quite ridiculous, one should start when one's ready. Age has not necessarily anything to do with it.

On average, people are ready by the age of 6... That's why primary school starts there.

[feeling]

Though, the whole idea of having to start school at a certain age is quite ridiculous, one should start when one's ready. Age has not necessarily anything to do with it.

On average, people are ready by the age of 6... That's why primary school starts there.

Yeah and there are special schools for slowpokes.

[Violet]

I have to disagree with you Lil. I learned how to read when I was three, so when I started school (one year earlier than I should have) when I was six, my teacher had to give me the reading material for the third grade in order to give me enough challenge. Though, the whole idea of having to start school at a certain age is quite ridiculous, one should start when one's ready. Age has not necessarily anything to do with it.

Oh, you had the option? That's nice. I didn't.

I'm with you on anti-agism, though It has pretty much nothing to do with anything, but nobody listens to me, and then they're all "NO, THE BRAIN BLAH BLAH AT THIS TIME FOR MOST PEEPLEZ" and stuff.

Yeah, I'm completely with you. Why wouldn't I be?

---

On average, people are ready by the age of 6... That's why primary school starts there.

Hilariously, there's actually no data to suggest when people are, or are not, ready for school. What does being ready for school constitute? That might get you somewhere that actually is somewhere.

---

Yeah and there are special schools for slowpokes.

Well, you'd know, wouldn't you?

[JohnCrichton72]

But the issue here is that you are training kids at the K-12 level to attain high grades and not a better education. Don't get me wrong, I understand the value of A-F as far as an evaluation of your level of knowledge, but grades seem far too artificially inflated.

Not really, the system itself is fine. The problem appears to be, if I may be so bold, that teachers have had to much pressure put on them to train children to achieve high grades.

If it didn't matter that half of your class flunked the grade itself would be more sought after, the pass rate is being artificially bloated via dubious teaching methods. You are being asked to do more with less, and they aren't so much asking as threatening your livelihood and turning a blind eye.

The fact that it's normal to teach students how to pass an exam instead of educating shows this. When I first seen it in A level bio chemistry I was heart broken, basically took all of the competitive spirit out of the game. Made trying to get a good grade next to impossible, it just stopped meaning anything.

Worse still the higher up, the worse it gets. People spending the best part of a decade on PHDs............ WHY !?

ignore this please, I completely misread everything Mr.Beard said in my sleep deprived state. Then proceeded to rant.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Though, the whole idea of having to start school at a certain age is quite ridiculous, one should start when one's ready. Age has not necessarily anything to do with it.

On average, people are ready by the age of 6... That's why primary school starts there.

In the UK it's 3/4?

I started school (Reception leading into junior school) at 3...

---

Worse still the higher up, the worse it gets. People spending the best part of a decade on PHDs............ WHY !?

I know you said to ignore this part but, as a PhD student for around 4 years so far:

1. Passion
2. Money (or lack thereof)
3. Determination to attain one
4. Required to get a job in any sort of decent academic research position in most fields.

PT PhDs take a long time. No reputable University would let a FT student languish for more than maybe 5 years on getting one before cutting them loose. I mean, their funding would only be up to 4 years max anyway.

[Violet]

Worse still the higher up, the worse it gets. People spending the best part of a decade on PHDs............ WHY !?

I know you said to ignore this part but, as a PhD student for around 4 years so far:

1. Passion
2. Money (or lack thereof)
3. Determination to attain one
4. Required to get a job in any sort of decent academic research position in most fields.

PT PhDs take a long time. No reputable University would let a FT student languish for more than maybe 5 years on getting one before cutting them loose. I mean, their funding would only be up to 4 years max anyway.

Something something degree factories...

I do not like them, Sam-I-Am! I will not eat Green Eggs and Ham!

[Clueless Morgan]

PT PhDs take a long time. No reputable University would let a FT student languish for more than maybe 5 years on getting one before cutting them loose. I mean, their funding would only be up to 4 years max anyway.

I read this sentence, stopped at FT and thought: "What does that stand for? Fucktard? Hmm, I don't think that's it." Am I curious to know what it means, though.

As for grades, I think there's a lot of emphasis put on getting grades to the point where it seems that students aim for the grade, not comprehension of the material, because, as said multiple times in this thread already, the grades determine where you can advance to in the next level of your education. If you don't have the grades than you won't get into university, or into a masters program so you have to work for the grade - whether the material is learned or not ends up taking a back seat.

I think it also depends on the student and their desire to learn. I feel like when I was in school and in a class that applied to my degree field, I both wanted to comprehend the material and get a good grade - the comprehension part because I was learning something that I would probably have to put into practice in my career so I'd better learn it, if only so I don't look like a complete moron when I get a job, and the grade part I saw as a reflection of my comprehension of the material. When it came to the pre-req classes, though, like Writing 101 and Geography and the other humanities classes you have to take that have nothing to do with your degree, I found them interesting and I tended to enjoy the classes, but I had no desire to retain the material I was learning any longer than I needed it to get a grade I thought was acceptable. And I wanted the grade simply to have a good GPA. I understood the material in the pre-reqs, even comprehended it pretty well, but I didn't retain any of it (or most of it, I should say) or feel like there was a pressing need to retain it in light of the fact that I was having to jamb my brain full of information that actually applied to my future career.

And, sadly, while I think there's a bit of merit to going to a pass-fail system in school (I basically did my last year opting for pass-fail grading options but still did A/B worthy work), you will end up with the students who don't care enough about the class or subject (even if they're getting a degree in it) to put in quality work and they'll do the absolute minimum amount of work needed to get a passing grade and I don't want a lawyer or a doctor or an engineer who did the absolute minimum to get through school. Granted, I will concede the point that I don't know whether the lawyers or doctors or engineers I see or work with right now got straight As, and there is an element on learning on the job so it's a hard question to answer.