If you could change the education system

[Kayenneh]

Model after the Finnish school system, not the Korean one.

Though we could use some improvement..

a) More advanced classes (in all subjects) for those who need/want it.
b) More teacher assistants for those who need extra tutoring or smaller groups.
c) More arts, especially drama and more time for phys ed.

[KillYourself]

And, um, life skills classes here have been generally reckoned a failure, something the "slower" students may need along with home economics and wood shop. If they can't get the gist of "the world" from econ, math, science, history and lit, chances are they are there will be problems no matter what. Not sure I like paying them for A's, but I would be interested in two things there: One, the increase in the frequency of A's; two, increase in performance on high level exams such as AP.

The incentive thing is great. People will get higher grades, from nerdy students to slackers to students who are gangsters will see that incentive and have an extra reason to push for good grades. They will give the government hundreds of thousands of dollars in the future, in the end the small amount of money given to the student will allow the government to make more money in the future, this incentive will help make students get the grades, which leads to a higher paying job,which leads to them paying higher taxes.

Life skill classes that are currently available are shit compared to what im talking about. The classes' goal would be to make the student a better person, encourage entrepreneurship and success, teach teens how to be more logical, teach teens how to control their emotions which can cause illogical actions , and create unity in our communities. This would make less people be dependent on welfare in the future, reduce drug use, cause teens to get better jobs in the future, and overall improve life for the next generation.

[Epimethean]

You missed my point about the metric for assessing the net effect of paying kids to get good grades. and your suggestion for an uber-lifeskills course would result in just another elective, most likely. We can dream about creating the ultimate reality course, when, truly, teaching students the stuff they are in school to learn in the first place, doing it damned well, and assessing their understanding with properly written, rigorous test batteries is the way to get them into upper academics. I would suggest, if we are going to consider such a class as you suggest here, that we do the more logical thing and embrace voc-tech education for the students who would benefit from your course, as they are unlikely to be of the high performing set by and large and would be far better served to get into programs such as EVIT or other such vocational ed schools offer.

Let's be honest here: 50% of students who graduate from high school really are not meant to be in universities. They go because there is a set of expectations that they do so, and little opportunity elsewhere. It is mandatory for students to remain in school until they are either sixteen or a sophomore. The rate of dropping out has risen steadily over the past few years. Let's get the students who are not great students involved in voc-tech and let them begin such a course of study at sixteen rather than wasting their time accruing C's and D's in classes they don't truly get.

So, rather than a "life changer" of a course (because, most likely, it wouldn't be unless it were taught by an incredible teacher, and an incredible teacher can make ANY course life changing), let's let them change the course of their lives.

[KillYourself]

You missed my point about the metric for assessing the net effect of paying kids to get good grades. and your suggestion for an uber-lifeskills course would result in just another elective, most likely. We can dream about creating the ultimate reality course, when, truly, teaching students the stuff they are in school to learn in the first place, doing it damned well, and assessing their understanding with properly written, rigorous test batteries is the way to get them into upper academics. I would suggest, if we are going to consider such a class as you suggest here, that we do the more logical thing and embrace voc-tech education for the students who would benefit from your course, as they are unlikely to be of the high performing set by and large and would be far better served to get into programs such as EVIT or other such vocational ed schools offer.

Let's be honest here: 50% of students who graduate from high school really are not meant to be in universities. They go because there is a set of expectations that they do so, and little opportunity elsewhere. It is mandatory for students to remain in school until they are either sixteen or a sophomore. The rate of dropping out has risen steadily over the past few years. Let's get the students who are not great students involved in voc-tech and let them begin such a course of study at sixteen rather than wasting their time accruing C's and D's in classes they don't truly get.

So, rather than a "life changer" of a course (because, most likely, it wouldn't be unless it were taught by an incredible teacher, and an incredible teacher can make ANY course life changing), let's let them change the course of their lives.

"50% of students who graduate from high school really are not meant to be in universities." Says who? Every should be successful and have high paying jobs. Everyone should be intelligent and understanding of each other. I believe those are a few characteristics of a utopia where every single citizen is accounted for. I believe that we need to create a utopia and that the idea of a utopia is plausible. Great education is the first step. As for the vocational school, At 16 do you think people can really decide what they want to do for the rest of their life? A life changer course, is not what I had in mind. Think of it like this, lets say a women has A cups, she get breast implants which gives her D cups, The class would be more of an life enhancer compared to a "life changer."

[Epimethean]

Here you go:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053859/ns/...sMMiD1T8VA

And,

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/62/43897509.pdf

By the by, until eugenics is instituted, this one won't ever be on the menu:

"Everyone should be intelligent ..."

Let's focus on getting each person the type and level of education necessary rather than try to make chicken soup out of chicken shit.

[KillYourself]

Here you go:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053859/ns/...sMMiD1T8VA

And,

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/62/43897509.pdf

By the by, until eugenics is instituted, this one won't ever be on the menu:

"Everyone should be intelligent ..."

Let's focus on getting each person the type and level of education necessary rather than try to make chicken soup out of chicken shit.

I get that your saying it would be too difficult or even impossible to get everyone to be successful, but as long as the students do not have any mental handicaps, they have the potential to be the next president or Eisenstein. If they have the right infrastructure built in them they can put their mind and effort into it and they can reach their potential.

[Epimethean]

In a word, no, although Bush Jr. lowered the bar rather profoundly on the former. Truly, you cannot expect a fellow with an IQ of 90 to rework particle physics, but you can train him to become a successful mechanic, electrician, carpenter, etc. You use the word, potential, and this should be a compelling term for the implementation of VET programs.