Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion White House USA starting a new email list on educa

Seems like we have several people on the same wavelength here on this topic.

Do you think it's possible in America to change things in the short term the way many are describing here? I think it would require a big shift in the current mentality to accomplish it. We've talked before on this forum, for example, how the GT label somehow appears elitist. In America, we're all supposed to be special.... We all deserve the same education, as opposed to all deserving education appropriate to your academic level.

It also seems strange to me that there is such a lack of equality in the respect that seems to be given to a highly-skilled/talented blue collar worker and a typical white collar worker.

If we're really worried about 25% of Americans not finishing high school, and I think we should be, then I agree with the points from PPs like Val who talk about things like offering career inventories, and trade classes/apprenticeships at high school. But to get there, we'd need to remove the stigma from those kinds of jobs first.

Just my ramblings....

Interesting.

These 25 out of 25 students who failed a core course in their field had the exam for a month at home. They could have easily gotten help in that time. I am not so sure they lacked the intelligence to actually do this reasonably simple work, but the motivation to even be bothered to do well on the exam.

Was it because they were in the final year and already knew they were covered by the quota system, which would ensure all of them would pass with marks within the University's desired range? It is common knowledge they modify the final results to fit within the expected curve.

If the University testing in some or even worse a lot of courses is so basic, what is the usefulness of the degree? It is to the point where I wonder if an employer would not be better served picking people randomly off the street to fill positions in some fields.

My second concern is this may even be discouraging those who should be in the field from going further. If the testing does not really prove anything, then how do you stand out so you can have a chance to work in the more interesting areas in the field.

For all the talk of diversity in the USA, there is very little when it comes to educational options.

I hire and fire people for my job and I prefer to hire kids as interns then train them up. I will also hire a college level first or second chair musician for any position. And older workers are great as well if they know their stuff as they are 100% dependable and bring a ton of experience. I also like quirky people as long as they get stuff done.

Most of the HR departments in the US prefer to hire a specific type of person with a degree and x years of experience who look clean cut and say the right things, etc. These people for the most part lack imagination and grit and are boring to be around.

A great number of people do not meet the "sweet spot" for HR and they are a gold mine for those who take the time to look for them.

I guess it's hard to say without tutoring them to see how quickly they pick up information, how long they retain it, and how well they can apply the information in new situations.

I've done a reasonable amount of teaching, and it's been eye-opening. What seems reasonably simple (or even trivial) can be very difficult for some people. I've seen students (adults and kids) pick basic things up with a minimum of instruction on day 1 of a weekly class, while others are still struggling 8 weeks later.

And as a student, I've learned that something that's reasonably simple for others may be beyond me (for example, drawing is beyond my abilities).

I think that part of our education problem is our optimistic national nature. American optimism is often a huge strength, but in this case, it seems to be driving us into believing things that aren't true --- namely that everyone can learn certain things or learn them at certain ages, or that everyone should go to college.

A good paper debunking the "college for everyone" idea is
"Beyond One-Size-Fits-All College Dreams: Alternative Pathways to Desirable Careers" , published in American Educator, v34 n3 p2-8, 10-13 Fall 2010 (the magazine of the American Federation of Teachers).

The paper is at
http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/fall2010/Rosenbaum.pdf , and here is the abstract:

The vast majority of high school students plan to attend college--and believe that a bachelor's degree all but guarantees them a high-paying job. What many of them don't know is that those who are not well prepared are not likely to graduate. They also don't realize that plenty of career-focused certificates and associate's degrees lead to satisfying careers that pay just as well as, and sometimes better than, careers that require a bachelor's degree. If detailed information on the broad array of higher education and career options were made available to them, students would have more incentive to work hard in high school and a better chance of achieving their dreams. This paper aims to identify three elements of the BA-for-all movement that are potentially harmful: (1) the idealization of the BA degree, which results in ignoring excellent options like an applied associate's degree in mechanical design technology, graphic communication technologies, dental hygiene, or computer networking; (2) the promise of college access, which results in high school students seeing their slightly older peers go off to college, but not seeing the trouble many have once on campus; and (3) the cultivation of stigma-free remediation, which results in many "college" students not even knowing that they are in remedial, noncredit courses. The authors discuss each of these issues and call for three simple remedies: (1) realizing that many good jobs do not require a BA; (2) fully informing students about their options; and (3) honestly telling them what it will take to succeed.

I'd guess that almost all of Stanford's athletes are college material but that their coaches don't want them to be overly "distracted" by rigorous courses.

A recent NYT story "CUNY Adjusts Amid Tide of Remedial Students" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/nyregion/04remedial.html is even more troubling.

I tend to agree with you. A lot of my comments are more thinking out loud. I feel a lot of the problem is a result of poor assumptions about the effectiveness of testing. IQ tests for instance test the ability of people to rapidly answer simple questions. These do not test the ability to answer complex questions. Early skill assessments are used to set future expectations.

My interest is in better understanding human behavior and cognitive abilities. Then to apply this understanding to better test these abilities. The final and probably most difficult step would be to make use of this knowledge. My optimism causes me to believe we can at least succeed at the first two, but not necessarily the last part (changing society).

Yes, that article was very troubling. It got more troubling when I investigated one of the comments. Here's the comment:


I looked up Math 100 at CUNY. Here are some snippets of what I found:


And the catalog description (emphasis mine):



If you click through the first CUNY link, you'll find sample exams. I could teach some of that stuff on the first exam to my six-year-old in ten minutes, and I am not joking or exaggerating or implying that her giftedness is the reason why.

Worse, they equate Math 100 with the two other courses that satisfy the math requirement for graduation: statistics and pre-calculus.

I've seen so many cases of where what you say is true, I don't even have to check it out to believe you. I'm happy not to be the only one seeing this.

Now, if we can only convince people this is a serious enough of an issue to do something about it. In some fields, handing out degrees to unqualified people puts lives at risk.

This is a trend that I have a lot of trouble understanding. I suppose it stems from the philosophy that "everyone deserves a chance to go to college if they want to," which seems to have translated into "and so we'll lower standards to make sure they pass."



Val