Arabs in Japan!? OFFTOPIC about education and arrogance

[PopCulturePooka]

I thought this thread was about Arabs. :souka:

Iranians aren't Arabs?

[Maciamo]

Iranians aren't Arabs?

Of course not ! No more than Turks or Afghanis or Pakistani or Chinese or Swedish or Mexicans. The Iranians descend from the Aryans, like Caucasians and (Northern) Indians people. They speak an Indo-European language descending from Persian, a language related to Latin, Greek and Sanskrit.

That's a big mistake considering that Iran/Persia is one of the country with the oldest history, and they have rarely been on good terms with the Arab neighbours in Iraq/Babylon or Syria/Assyria. What's more Iran's population (70m) is bigger than Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (basically all the Arab heartland) combined.

[PopCulturePooka]

Of course not ! No more than Turks or Afghanis or Pakistani or Chinese or Swedish or Mexicans. The Iranians descend from the Aryans, like Caucasians and (Northern) Indians people. They speak an Indo-European language descending from Persian, a language related to Latin, Greek and Sanskrit.

That's a big mistake considering that Iran/Persia is one of the country with the oldest history, and they have rarely been on good terms with the Arab neighbours in Iraq/Babylon or Syria/Assyria. What's more Iran's population (70m) is bigger than Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (basically all the Arab heartland) combined.
Well...
I'm surprised you're a teacher with how ARROGANTLY you correct someone. Especially considering how many assumptions, errors and mistakes YOU wourself make about other countries (eg numerous ones about Australia spring to mind).

[Maciamo]

Well...
I'm surprised you're a teacher with how ARROGANTLY you correct someone. Especially considering how many assumptions, errors and mistakes YOU wourself make about other countries (eg numerous ones about Australia spring to mind).

For example ? I spent 5 months in Australia and went all around the country. I know you are Australian, but you may not know your country as well as you think. For example I remember you arguing that summer wasn't that hot, but of course you haven't lived in most places in Australia. so how would you know better than the statistics ?

What's more my reply was not the least arrogant. This is common knowledge about geography, ethnic groups or linguistics. I am surprised that in today's international society (global village) there are still people who do not make the difference between 70 million Aryan Iranians living in a mountaining country and speaking an Indo-European language, and their Arabic neighbours living in mostly desertic areas and speaking a Semitic language. How can one not know that and still take the pain to read the news about the Middle East and claim to understand what's going on ? It would be like trying to understand the relationship between Japan and China without knowing that Japan invaded, occupied and plundered China during from 1933 to 1945. It's just that the relation issues between Iran and Arabic countries date back to at least 4000 years ago, not just 70 years.

[PopCulturePooka]

For example ? I spent 5 months in Australia and went all around the country. I know you are Australian, but you may not know your country as well as you think. For example I remember you arguing that summer wasn't that hot, but of course you haven't lived in most places in Australia. so how would you know better than the statistics ?You HAVE made numerous erros about Australia, I havecorrected you on more than one.
You HAVE resorted to stereotypes and common misconceptions about Australia.
Of course in your arrogance you can never see when you are wrong.

Ever.

So trying to tell you is like talking to a brick wall.

But lets have a look shall we at the post in question.
Happened here:
http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14429&page=3
You weren't arguing that summer was hot, nor did I disagree that it was. YOU made a stereotyped assumption (amongst a bunch of others) that all Aussies seemed to live in exceedingly hot places. I proved you wrong, stating that 60 - 80% lived in remarkaly comfortable coastal areas. You tried then saying it was hot, over 50'C, without mentioning to people that the area in quetion was one of the most remote and unpopulated areas of Australia. Eventually it got into a debate about Santa suits and you backed out by saying... oh I'm not christian so I don't know about Santa Suits.

Also http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?p=179974
Another stereotype and inaccuracy you resorted too, this time that Aussies seem to eat a lot of Kangaroo. When proven incorrect you tried to say that 'Oh no, I mean, Europeans do'.

What's more my reply was not the least arrogant.It was exceedling arrogant.

Starting right from here:
I thought this thread was about Arabs.

Then more arrogant and pithy comments like:
Of course not !

That's a big mistake considering

Instead of being a GOOD educator (which its becoming obvious) and explaining it nicely, you first got pithy, then came down on someone who asked for clarification like a ton of bricks.
Tell me, do you do that with your students?
Are you so stand-ofish with everyone who never has the magical volume of information thats in your head?

This is common knowledge about geography, ethnic groups or linguistics.
Consider.
I dropped Geography in 8th grade.
I didn't NEED georgraphy, it was an elective subject and the strand it was in also had Speech and Drama, which I took instead.
I hardly recall 8th grade geography.
Its not to say that I don't know a fair abit of geography. However OBVIOUSLY my geography knowledge isn't as extensive as the great and powerful Maciamo (who occasionally gets it quite wrong himself), and you just RELISHED the chance to lord it over someone and try and act superior.

I am surprised that in today's international society (global village) there are still people who do not make the difference An attempt to be little anothers intelligence, couched in flowery terms.

How can one not know that and still take the pain to read the news about the Middle East and claim to understand what's going on ?Hey LOOK EVERYONE! More patetened pithy arrogance from the Mac.

You know what? You were right, I was wrong.
But instead of trying to explain it NIVELY and enlighten someone, you acted like a bully. An arrogant bully. And instead of me thanking you, I think you are nothing more than a jerk.

GG Mac.

EDIT: One great Irony is that occasionally, its obvious in your posts that English is a learned language and you make more than a few errors. Its a low blow to attack you on this, but consider next time that you DO live in a glass house here a lot of the time, so you should be careful with those stones.

[Maciamo]

You HAVE made numerous erros about Australia, I havecorrected you on more than one.
You HAVE resorted to stereotypes and common misconceptions about Australia.

Alright, et have a look, shall we.


Happened here:
http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14429&page=3
You weren't arguing that summer was hot, nor did I disagree that it was. YOU made a stereotyped assumption (amongst a bunch of others) that all Aussies seemed to live in exceedingly hot places. I proved you wrong, stating that 60 - 80% lived in remarkaly comfortable coastal areas. You tried then saying it was hot, over 50'C, without mentioning to people that the area in quetion was one of the most remote and unpopulated areas of Australia.

This happened in post #70 (http://www.jref.com/forum/showpost.php?p=170502&postcount=70) I said : "That also struck me as strange that there should be people wearing Santa (Claus) clothes with the beard and hat when it's 40'C."

You replied : "Hey look, now YOU are showing the cultural and geographic ignorance. Most Australians dont live in the areas that hit 40 degrees, even in Summer."

So, first of all, I never said or implied that most Australians lived in places that reached 50'C but 40'C. I said later that the hottest places where few people live can reach 50'C.

I went to Australia from January 1998, which was a hotter summer than usual. I remember clearly that there were many days between January and March when temperatures exceeded 40'C, and I was in the Victoria and New South Wales at that time. Looking at the statistics, I found that indeed the max. high in Melbourne (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT003020) was over 40'C from November to March (max. 46'C in January), the same in Adelaine (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT003040) (max 48'c in January) and Perth (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT003050) (max. 44 in February), and from December to February in Sydney (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT003030). This is for the "coolest parts" of Australia where most people live. Considering that it even reached 38'C in London, it would be odd that Australian cities be cooler at their maximum. Where doesn't it hit 40'C ? Tasmania ? Actually even there (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT003080) it does.

Eventually it got into a debate about Santa suits and you backed out by saying... oh I'm not christian so I don't know about Santa Suits.

I said I wasn't in Australia for Christmas, so I didn't know whether the Santas were wearing different clothes than in Europe.


Also http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?p=179974
Another stereotype and inaccuracy you resorted too, this time that Aussies seem to eat a lot of Kangaroo. When proven incorrect you tried to say that 'Oh no, I mean, Europeans do'.

Not at all. As I said I stayed a few months in Australia, and I met enough people to aks them (as an outsider) how often they ate kangaroo. I haven't met all the 18 million Australians, but from those I met, it seems that many eat kangaroo at least a few times a year. Ewok, another Australian member, backed me saying "We have roo here fairly often." So it's not because you or your family and friends don't, that all Australians are like you.

Instead of being a GOOD educator (which its becoming obvious) and explaining it nicely, you first got pithy, then came down on someone who asked for clarification like a ton of bricks.

The point is that people usually remember better when they are shocked or embarassed. The stronger the feeling and the higher the chance the person will remember vividly for a long time. That's one of the basics of education : fear to mistake in the future if you want to remember things clearly.

It could be that many well-educated or knowledgeable people react in what you call an "arrogant" way (I think "strict", "harsh" or "merciless" are more appropriate terms here) because that is the way they were taught and the reason why they became more erudite. In my case, it is more astonishment or incredulity than arrogance that motivate me to react like this.

Consider.
I dropped Geography in 8th grade.
I didn't NEED georgraphy, it was an elective subject and the strand it was in also had Speech and Drama, which I took instead.

How can one not NEED geography ? Don't you live in the world like all of us ? I was raised with a system where nobody can "drop" geography before university (or history, maths and one's mother tongue, for that matter). Now I remember that in Australia it is possible for a 12 grader to have only "outdoor activities" (rafting, climibing), "sports", "arts" and "drama" (and English which I think is the only compulsory subject), and no science, no maths, no geography and no history at all. That would be ok if all the geography, history, maths and sciences had been covered in intensive courses in the previous years, but that is not the case, as they remain optional in those years.


You know what? You were right, I was wrong.
But instead of trying to explain it NIVELY and enlighten someone, you acted like a bully. An arrogant bully. And instead of me thanking you, I think you are nothing more than a jerk.

It makes me feel like your teachers at school were always nice with you. When you made a mistake in front of the class, they would tell everyone not to laugh and pat you on the head saying in a warm voice "oh my little boy, that's ok, it's perfectly alright to mistake. We will buy you an ice cream after class to make you feel better." That is not the way I was taught. Usually if the teacher asked to explain the last lesson's content and one couldn't, they were ejected from the classroom and told to meditate about it. Some teachers even threatened the students that if they didn't pass their subject (i.e. passing through the vicious correction system where one could almost become a teacher by passing the exam brilliantly) they would pressure the teacher's council to make this or that student repeat their year, even if they hadn't failed any other subject.

[PopCulturePooka]

I went to Australia from January 1998, which was a hotter summer than usual. I remember clearly that there were many days between January and March when temperatures exceeded 40'C, and I was in the Victoria and New South Wales at that time. Looking at the statistics, I found that indeed the max. high in Melbourne (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT003020) was over 40'C from November to March (max. 46'C in January), the same in Adelaine (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT003040) (max 48'c in January) and Perth (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT003050) (max. 44 in February), and from December to February in Sydney (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT003030). This is for the "coolest parts" of Australia where most people live. Considering that it even reached 38'C in London, it would be odd that Australian cities be cooler at their maximum. Where doesn't it hit 40'C ? Tasmania ? Actually even there (http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT003080) it does.

Statistical outliers. Honestly.
A 40 degree day is enough to be big news.
Funny how you don't mentione average temperature for those months and instead select the OUTLIERS.
School kids are sent home when it goes over 42 degrees. Heres something. I have never met a surburban kid that has been sent home because of heat. What does that tell you about how common those 40 degree days are.
I live in Brisbane. Statitiscally it should be hotter than the Southern cities. Even here 40 degree days are a cause of discussion and news articles about sick old people. If these were so common (which looking at the monthly averages they are not), they would not make news.


I said I wasn't in Australia for Christmas, so I didn't know whether the Santas were wearing different clothes than in Europe.
I don't care whether Australians celebrate Xmas or not because I am not Christian and don't celebrate Xmas.
Funny way of saying it yes?
Oh yeah FYI some Sanat's DO wear shorts and shirts. Becuase its hot? No. Becuase its a novelty. The Santa suit norm is still the typical Santa costume. even outdoors. Kids identify with it better.



Not at all. As I said I stayed a few months in Australia, and I met enough people to aks them (as an outsider) how often they ate kangaroo. I haven't met all the 18 million Australians, but from those I met, it seems that many eat kangaroo at least a few times a year. Ewok, another Australian member, backed me saying "We have roo here fairly often." So it's not because you or your family and friends don't, that all Australians are like you.
Hahah, hey Mac... remember when you said this?
so how would you know better than the statistics ? I'll help ya, it was two posts ago.
I posted stats and articles where people explained that Roo meat was not common and there was a HUGE struggle to get Aussies eating it as any more than a novelty.
So it's not because you or and friends do, that all Australians are like you.
Right back at ya.

The point is that people usually remember better when they are shocked or embarassed. The stronger the feeling and the higher the chance the person will remember vividly for a long time. That's one of the basics of education : fear to mistake in the future if you want to remember things clearly. So you freely admit to arrogance, bullying and arsehole tactics as a teacher?
Its here in writing now.

I can agree somewhat. AFTER you have corrected a mistake once or twice nicely (a word that isn't in your dictionary it seems). If it hasn't sunk in then you get meaner.



How can one not NEED geography ?I had my path set back then.
Ecology and Science.
In 9th and 10th grade you could only pick 6 subjects.

Math and English were mandatory. You had to pick two of Science, History or Geography. I picked the first two. Then you had two more slots. Drama and Health Pysical Ed (without the sport is what I chose)

In 11th and 12th grade I did Math B, English, Drama, Biology, Earth Science (Geology) and Film. Why? I knew exactly what I intended to study in University and univeristy entry is reliant on high school studied subjects. Hence the huge weighting on Science subjects.

Don't you live in the world like all of us ? I was raised with a system where nobody can "drop" geography before university (or history, maths and one's mother tongue, for that matter). Now I remember that in Australia it is possible for a 12 grader to have only "outdoor activities" (rafting, climibing), "sports", "arts" and "drama" (and English which I think is the only compulsory subject), and no science, no maths, no geography and no history at all. That would be ok if all the geography, history, maths and sciences had been covered in intensive courses in the previous years, but that is not the case, as they remain optional in those years.Because Australian educators, worngly or rightly have found that kids who dont want to do certain subjects waste time for everyone else when they can better spend time studying what they want or need for the future. 'Silly' subjects like rafting and climbing are never counted towards univeristy entry. Sports, Drama, Film, Car Mechanics can all be counted for tertiary entry depending on what you intend to study. So... If a kid intends being a sports therapist he chooses Biology, Math, Sport and Physical Education. If you wish to a bachelor of arts you do English, maybe advanced English, Drama etc. Things like politics, archaeology etc use Geography for entry. So saying that, I'll pop quiz you. A kid wants to be an electrical engineer. He has never liked Geogrpahy and knows that he won't practically be using it in his future. In fact he is quite bad at it. He does escel in Science and math. Does he study English, History, Geography and say... Drama? Or does he do English Math B and Math C (progressively harder), Physics and Chemistry?



It makes me feel like your teachers at school were always nice with you. When you made a mistake in front of the class, they would tell everyone not to laugh and pat you on the head saying in a warm voice "oh my little boy, that's ok, it's perfectly alright to mistake. We will buy you an ice cream after class to make you feel better." Patronising aren't you? Seem's nobody did that to you as a kid and now you're bitter. Angry. Taking it out on others.

But... no. Teachers weren't nice. But if I made an honest mistake, they didn't go straight into belittling mode. Except one guy. Who was an angry, arrogant little SOB hated by many and not respected as a teacher. Wow. Seeing a pattern here.

That is not the way I was taught. Usually if the teacher asked to explain the last lesson's contentSo teacher, when did you instruct me last about Iran?

and one couldn't, they were ejected from the classroom and told to meditate about it. If European schools are producing people with your personality they are producing smart people, but horrible people. Theres a happy medium in education. You can be too soft, or way too hard. Seems your schools were the latter.

Some teachers even threatened the students that if they didn't pass their subject (i.e. passing through the vicious correction system where one could almost become a teacher by passing the exam brilliantly) they would pressure the teacher's council to make this or that student repeat their year, even if they hadn't failed any other subject.Over here if you fail a class then basically, if its needed for university, you are screwed. You won't get in.
So many a student voluntarilly repeats a year to improve. Or does a bridging course before uni.

[Mike Cash]

I thought Maciamo usually locked threads when they started to get this nasty.

[Uncle Frank]

Don't interupt the Samari sword battle of words, LOL !

Frank

:blush: :p

[Mike Cash]

I wouldn't mention it, but I while I was typing a reply to such a thread a few days ago, he locked it. Rather arbitrarily, I thought.

[thomas]

I thought Maciamo usually locked threads when they started to get this nasty.
Well, that's what I actually intended to do. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, I humbly suggest - for the sake of peace - to restrict such debates to PMs. :)

[Bramicus]

I've noticed there's an awful lot of time spent by an awful lot of people on this forum criticizing and denigrating other posters for making mistakes, and then arguing about it endlessly -- who made the mistake first, who made the bigger mistake, how wrong they were in their accusations, etc., blah blah blah. All the time wasted over who made a mistake and when, and how much of a mistake it was, and whether the other person made mistakes as well, etc! If someone makes a mistake, why not just gently correct it without telling him how big a mistake it was and/or what an idiot or dishonest he was to have made it. If someone makes a mistake, acknowledge it and move on!

[Maciamo]

Statistical outliers. Honestly.
A 40 degree day is enough to be big news.
Funny how you don't mentione average temperature for those months and instead select the OUTLIERS.

Because averages include night time, cooler days, etc. Few days are average. It's usually either hotter or colder.

I live in Brisbane. Statitiscally it should be hotter than the Southern cities.

Now I understand. Brisbane is more humid than the cities I mentioned. So forcedly the temperature tend to get less extreme but it always feel hotter (or colder) than it really is, like in Tokyo. In dry places like most of Australia but from Brisbane up the East Coast and top North, temperatures would change more dramatically in just one day (I heard people in Melbourne say that they can get the 4 seasons in a single day). That's why if you look at the averages, Brisbane may seem similar to, say Adelaide, but in fact the day and night, or day to day difference will be more pronounced in drier Adelaide.

Oh yeah FYI some Sanat's DO wear shorts and shirts. Becuase its hot? No. Becuase its a novelty. The Santa suit norm is still the typical Santa costume. even outdoors. Kids identify with it better.

The weather plays a role for sure. I can't imagine Santas wearing shorts and shirts in Northern Europe when it's typically freezing around Xmas.

So you freely admit to arrogance, bullying and arsehole tactics as a teacher?

I don't threaten people like some of my teachers did. As I said it's not arrogance but strictness, which is necessarily in any good education system. I did learn more with strict teachers than with others.

Because Australian educators, worngly or rightly have found that kids who dont want to do certain subjects waste time for everyone else when they can better spend time studying what they want or need for the future.

That's a good point. The question is, "what is school made for ?" To create specialists, or give everybody the basics in as many subjects as possible so that 1) they have a good general knowledge, 2) they can more easily choose their orientation at university and in life because they know better whether they like a subject or not.

So saying that, I'll pop quiz you. A kid wants to be an electrical engineer. He has never liked Geogrpahy and knows that he won't practically be using it in his future. In fact he is quite bad at it. He does escel in Science and math. Does he study English, History, Geography and say... Drama? Or does he do English Math B and Math C (progressively harder), Physics and Chemistry?

Where I come from, people who want to study technical subjects can choose a technical orientation with more emphasis on practical (as opposed to theoretical) sciences, and fewer hours of arts, languages or others.

But... no. Teachers weren't nice. But if I made an honest mistake, they didn't go straight into belittling mode. Except one guy. Who was an angry, arrogant little SOB hated by many and not respected as a teacher. Wow. Seeing a pattern here.

Did you feel belittled ? Maybe you are a bit too sensitive here (or maybe not used to being publicly corrected). My best teachers from primary school to uniersity were usually the stricter ones. These are the ones we (me and my former class mates) remember, and that have given us the necessary discipline to learn by ourselves and want to learn more.

If European schools are producing people with your personality they are producing smart people, but horrible people. Theres a happy medium in education. You can be too soft, or way too hard. Seems your schools were the latter.

I have to admit that the schooling system in countries like Belgium France or Germany are not as easy-going as in Australia or the United States. Both French and German people are often dismissed as antipathetic or arrogant, but usually also as intellectually strict and possessing a goof general knowledge (it depends on the person's educational level and socio-economic background, but if we compare people with a similar education...). One of the typical jokes about France is that it is a beautiful country, but it's a shame it is populated with French people. The truth is, it wouldn't be half what it is if the French were not so strict about cultural education (history, literature, architcture...), mathematics and sciences. France was the first Western country to develop the bullet-train (TGV), it heads the European Space Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency), developed the faster passenger plane to this day with Britain (the Concorde), and recently played a big part in building the biggest passenger plane in the world (the new Airbus A380 (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16756)). Why France ? Because France has some of the most difficult requirements for maths and sciences of any educational system worldwide (aling with Germany, the Benelux and maybe Scandinavia).

France is also the most touristical country in the world with as many annual visitors as inhabitants (60 million). Why ? Because the French have educated their people to respect their national heritage and make the most of it. France has probably more historians and more history-related publications per capita than any other country in the world. Again, that is because children are encouraged to like and learn about history since their childhood.

We can't compare well with Australia, but Japan, which has a millenary cultural heritage as well, has adopted a completely different attitude. Most Japanese don't care and don't know much about history. As a results there is little historical that remains in Japan, as the Japanese have constantly torn down "all these old buildings".

As for geography, there are about 40 countries in Europe (depends if you count Monaco, the Vatican, etc. as countries) in an area about the same size as Australia. As it is impossible to understand history without knowing where some countries are and what kind of people live there (ethnic groups, languages...), or how the relief and climate may have influence the local culture, battles, or other events, geography is intrinsicly linked to history.

So if you ask me, yes it is important for Europeans to know well about history and geography, and that is why they are compulsory subjects. It is essential to understand how one's neighbours think (cultural differences) and where they come from (socially, politically, ethnically, etc.). That is the same in most of Asia, which is why I said that it was impossible to understand the current problems in the Middle East (Israel, Iraq, Iran... or yesterday's terrorist attack in Turkey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4688575.stm) by Kurdish extremists) without knowing that Iranians, Jewish, Tukish, Kurdish and Arabic people all belonged to different ethnico-linguistic groups. It seems obvious to me because we were taught these things in the compulsory history and/or geography classes.

That is why I was surprised that you shouldn't know - but of course if these subjects are not in the compulsory curriculum in Australia, I understand. Maybe Australian people do not need to understand problems in the Middle East. It's so far away, they don't need to care... and it's not like Australia had troops in Iraq or something [sarcastic tone]. It reminds me of Japanese people; everytime something is happening in the world, they go like "nande sonna koto okorun daro ?" (why do such things happen ?), because they don't have the slightest idea of what's going on or about the country's background.

To come back to your original question "which education system is better, one that emphasize knowledge, or one that emphasises interpersonal relations. Of course both are important. But the main purpose of school is to learn and understand the world we live in. University takes care of creating specialists to find a job, but school should give the necessary knowledge to be part of society, which includes understanding one's country's own past, one's neighbours and the world we live in. There is no good excuse not to care about that, except if one wants to become a hermit.

The "island mentality" for Australia or Japan is outdated in this age of international communication and globalisation. Japanese people are usually stunned when the Koreans or Chinese protest against their history textbooks or war apologies. Why ? Because they don't learn about that part of history (that's what the protests are about). They may say they don't need China and Korea and can live a perfectly happy life without thinking about them or what their elders did to them 60 years ago. That is the ostrich policy (hehe, another connection with Australia, well "Emu policy" should I say :p ). It's not by not caring about one's neighbours that the problems with be solved. Nowadays it is not even about neighbours but any country in the world - as al-Qaeda terrorists remind us. If most people in a country don't understand why they are the target of terrorist attacks, then the chances are that their government has not taught them properly about it - at school or via the media, which is school for adults. Interestingly, the media education tend to reflect the school education policy. In Japan the media constantly downplay Japan's mistakes and blame China or Chinese living in Japan for anything that goes wrong. In Australia, I was amazed to see that in many cities the TV news were mainly limted to Australia, with just a brief outline of the few major events in the world (some local channels, not at all). Doesn't that match with the lack of importance attached to the world (history & geography) at school ?

Over here if you fail a class then basically, if its needed for university, you are screwed. You won't get in.
So many a student voluntarilly repeats a year to improve. Or does a bridging course before uni.

In my school, usually failing a class meant repeating a year if it was a major subject (from 4h/week), with possible exceptions if the grades in other subject were outstanding or if the person failed the exams due to medical or personal reasons (divorce or death in the family, etc.), but the average grades in small tests during the year were good.

Another major difference is that someone who has repeated a year has little chance to go to university or even get a good job afterward. So nobody repeats a year voluntarily. That's a lot of pressure (something unknown to the Japanese until the university entrance exam, as people don't repeat years at school in Japan even with terrible grades).

[RockLee]

A kid wants to be an electrical engineer. He has never liked Geogrpahy and knows that he won't practically be using it in his future. In fact he is quite bad at it. He does escel in Science and math. Does he study English, History, Geography and say... Drama? Or does he do English Math B and Math C (progressively harder), Physics and Chemistry?In my eyes that's a bad system.

1.Having common knowledge about things is a must.
2.How the hell does he know he'll never needs it in the future? Are you telling me you people can look into the future??
2.People won't even bother to study their own language -> loads of spelling errors and people become illiterate and dependant of programs that check their spelling etc.They hardly (sometimes) can have a decent conversation because they know almost nothing about their language.
3.Drama,sports is a thing you specialize in, hardly a course you need in your life unless you want to become an actor or a professional player.The thing is, the person like you said who only studied specific courses for his 'future job/studies' doesn't know anything else.So he won't have the chance to study something different in college/uni or have another job because he simply hasn't been studying for it.

There is too much freedom in that kind of education, people can **** about and still pass the exams, kind of like the Japanese system.What good will it do if you can pass without knowing what you studied :?

[Maciamo]

1.Having common knowledge about things is a must.
...
3.Drama,sports is a thing you specialize in, hardly a course you need in your life unless you want to become an actor or a professional player.The thing is, the person like you said who only studied specific courses for his 'future job/studies' doesn't know anything else.So he won't have the chance to study something different in college/uni or have another job because he simply hasn't been studying for it.

I totally agree with that. It is very risky to specialise early, especially that teenagers have evolving personalities and needs, and may change completely their fields of interest or ambitions for the future just a few years later (as I did).

In many European countries, most people don't even know for sure what kind of job they want to do in life. If you study chemistry, you might end up working in a bank or as a civil servant. It's fairly clear if you decide to study medicine, then you become a doctor. But what kind of doctor (what speciality) ? And what if you fail ? Belgian universities are so strict that the failure rate is about 50% in the first year and 30% in the second year, the about 5-10%. What if you put all your energy in becoming an actor, but never make it through to become popular and are forced to give up. What if you want to become a proffesional athlete but have an accident and must abandon this ambition for a normal job ? That would be quite bad if you only learned "sports" or useless subjects at school. Anyway, becoming a famous actor or sport star is usually more a dream than something accessible to anybody, even gifted.

Another problem with choosing one's speciality early is that the market demand may change after a few years, and it may be very difficult to find a job in this field.

Then as I said, universities should concentrate on the specialisation, not schools. It's already too early for most people at university to see clearly what they want to do in life, let alone younger people.

[Maciamo]

thought Maciamo usually locked threads when they started to get this nasty.

I don't think it is a particularily nasty thread. It's more like a game (if you have ever heard Italian or French people debating, you'd be forgiven for thinking they are going to kill each others, while in fact they are having fun :p ).

In fact, the discussion has turned on into an interesting debate about what school should teach, and what education system is better for the greatest number of people.

Btw, what thread did I close ? I very rarely close threads except if requested to by the thread starter. I more usually suggest to tone it down.

[Ma Cherie]

I was wondering, I did notice that some Europeans I've have wonderful knowledge of history, geography and other subjects. So, I was wondering, how do Europeans measure intelligence?

[Mike Cash]

I don't think it is a particularily nasty thread. It's more like a game (if you have ever heard Italian or French people debating, you'd be forgiven for thinking they are going to kill each others, while in fact they are having fun :p ).

In fact, the discussion has turned on into an interesting debate about what school should teach, and what education system is better for the greatest number of people.

Btw, what thread did I close ? I very rarely close threads except if requested to by the thread starter. I more usually suggest to tone it down.

You closed this one: http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18207&highlight=newcomer+bully

between the time I started and completed a reply to it.

[Elizabeth]

I've noticed there's an awful lot of time spent by an awful lot of people on this forum criticizing and denigrating other posters for making mistakes, and then arguing about it endlessly -- who made the mistake first, who made the bigger mistake, how wrong they were in their accusations, etc., blah blah blah. All the time wasted over who made a mistake and when, and how much of a mistake it was, and whether the other person made mistakes as well, etc! If someone makes a mistake, why not just gently correct it without telling him how big a mistake it was and/or what an idiot or dishonest he was to have made it. If someone makes a mistake, acknowledge it and move on!
If someone is interested to the point of posing a question here, where that is completely non-required, I'd say there's a very high probability they'll 'remember' (not that that is compulsory either). It helps to have a good sense of people and encourage open dialogue on your own forum I suppose. :sorry:

[PopCulturePooka]

Woot, much better.
I'll be more civil here as you have spoken to me with respect, not patronising like previously.



Now I understand. Brisbane is more humid than the cities I mentioned. So forcedly the temperature tend to get less extreme but it always feel hotter (or colder) than it really is, like in Tokyo.Granted its never AS humid as what I experienced in Tokyo. Even with warning, the humidity and temperature there was foul.

In dry places like most of Australia but from Brisbane up the East Coast and top North, temperatures would change more dramatically in just one day (I heard people in Melbourne say that they can get the 4 seasons in a single day). That's why if you look at the averages, Brisbane may seem similar to, say Adelaide, but in fact the day and night, or day to day difference will be more pronounced in drier Adelaide.Grandted yes.
However I just did an ask around of family and friends who lived or live in Melbourne. The common theme is days over 35-36 degrees are rare. They happen twice a year if that and are uncommon enough to get media coverage and out of the ordinary behaviour. So exceedingly hot days do happen, but very rarely and our out of the ordinary. Just like freaskishly cold days. Wet days. Snowy days. Because they still happen they pop up as the maximum temps on stats but they aren't coomon, they aren't the norm and they aren't something that people generally prepare for or consider.


The weather plays a role for sure. I can't imagine Santas wearing shorts and shirts in Northern Europe when it's typically freezing around Xmas.It plays a role in as much as the Santa image gets 'modified' for a cultural stereotyped depiction. You'll find Santa in shorts a shirt will always be carrying a surfboard and beach towel, or wearing those ridiculous (and unrealistic) cork-rimmed hats and a beer esky. In other words representing a 'stereotyped' Aussie. But again its not a norm here. Its more akin to dressing santa in a red and white yukata in Japan to fit that nations 'image'. You can do it sure, but its still not the norm. Dig?



I don't threaten people like some of my teachers did. As I said it's not arrogance but strictness, which is necessarily in any good education system. I did learn more with strict teachers than with others.Strict teachers yes. Some are good. I myself didn't like soft teachers. But strict to the point of verbally assaulting a person on their FIRST error is too much.



That's a good point. The question is, "what is school made for ?" To create specialists, or give everybody the basics in as many subjects as possible so that 1) they have a good general knowledge, 2) they can more easily choose their orientation at university and in life because they know better whether they like a subject or not.
I'm honestly conflicted about wether I like the aussie system or not. In one way it works because it lets students take an interest in what they like and not worry about something that doesnt work for them. Occasionally we used to get little a-holes popping in a class they obviously didnt want to be in and had no interest in. They were plain disruptive and annoying. It also means that University can be straight into the course/subject/faculty you need. No fuffing about like American systems were you seem to choose a whole bunch of seemingly random subjects and courses for the first few years. You are prepared to go straight into it. Typically Aussie students get their Bachelors Degree by the time they are 21 and can enter the workforce in their chosen field then. If it doesn't work for you, entering University again is very easy. 'Mature age' students are exceedingly common. In my course they outnumbered direct entry students.

On the other hand, yes, you do miss information thats worthy of general knowledge.

I obviously lean a little more to the system in place. Doing subjects in school I didn't want to do would have more than likely held me back. I wouldn't have pushed myself in them as much as I did with the subjects I chose.


Where I come from, people who want to study technical subjects can choose a technical orientation with more emphasis on practical (as opposed to theoretical) sciences, and fewer hours of arts, languages or others.Sounds somewhat similar to here really.



Did you feel belittled ? Maybe you are a bit too sensitive here (or maybe not used to being publicly corrected).Dude I am all to jiggy with the public correction thing. I endorse that product or service 100% when done right.
Lets take for example your correction to me re: Iran. If you wrote it like this:

No more than Turks or Afghanis or Pakistani or Chinese or Swedish or Mexicans. The Iranians descend from the Aryans, like Caucasians and (Northern) Indians people. They speak an Indo-European language descending from Persian, a language related to Latin, Greek and Sanskrit.

Iran/Persia is a country with the oldest history, and they have rarely been on good terms with the Arab neighbours in Iraq/Babylon or Syria/Assyria. What's more Iran's population (70m) is bigger than Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (basically all the Arab heartland) combined.

Note how I did not omit any information you posted. I did omit the belittling remarks and the remarks that bordered on insulting.

I would have been MUCH more receptive to you if you posted in this way. As it was because you came in swinging I passively agressively ignored the content of your post. Why? Because yes, your comments seemed enginereed to belittle. And obviously I don't respond well to that.

But I do take correction. If you posted my edited way I would ahve said:

Woops, my mistake then. Cool. Learn something new every day.

My best teachers from primary school to uniersity were usually the stricter ones. These are the ones we (me and my former class mates) remember, and that have given us the necessary discipline to learn by ourselves and want to learn more.This guys was hated and is sill disliked by me and former classmates to this day.
He taught math. And if a student made a mistake he went straight away at the kids throat. No gentle correction the first time. No decent explanation of were the error was. Belittling and public humiliation were his tricks of the trade. He was my friends Math B teacher.
Compare to my Math B teacher, Mrs Humphries. She was strict yes. If our CLASS average dropped below a B she would get annoyed. We commonly had our entire class kept in at lunch times to go over work we had to do. We had seating arrangements, which is very rare in Aussie schools. Sounds strict right? Yet she was very popular and well liked. Because as hard as she was there, she never, EVER got condescending, insulting or belittling to a student unless the absolutely deserved it. If a student made an error she wouldn't public state 'OF COURSE NOT! YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG'.
Nor would she be a hippy and tell everyone not to laugh (although she WOULD kick the people who laughed out, thats disruptive) and pat you on the head saying in a warm voice "oh my little boy, that's ok, it's perfectly alright to mistake. We will buy you an ice cream after class to make you feel better."
She would tell you that you were wrong. She would correct you. She would spend a moment or two going over it with the class (sometimes if one person makes a mistake, a few others have made the same mistake as well). If you continuously made the mistake she would get harsher on you. Make you stay during lunch alone. Assign extra homework on that topic. But like I said she was never condescending or belittling. If you were wrong you were not made to feel like an idiot. Within reason of course. She wouldn't take ****, she knew enough to expect respect if she was giving it.

Now, guess which class had the better average? Classes were randomly assigned, so it wasn't as if the smarter students were placed in one class and the dumber in another. Which class had the better behaved students? Who was more fondly remembered?

I have to admit that the schooling system in countries like Belgium France or Germany are not as easy-going as in Australia or the United States. Both French and German people are often dismissed as antipathetic or arrogant, but usually also as intellectually strict and possessing a goof general knowledge (it depends on the person's educational level and socio-economic background, but if we compare people with a similar education...). One of the typical jokes about France is that it is a beautiful country, but it's a shame it is populated with French people. The truth is, it wouldn't be half what it is if the French were not so strict about cultural education (history, literature, architcture...), mathematics and sciences. France was the first Western country to develop the bullet-train (TGV), it heads the European Space Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency), developed the faster passenger plane to this day with Britain (the Concorde), and recently played a big part in building the biggest passenger plane in the world (the new Airbus A380 (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16756)). Why France ? Because France has some of the most difficult requirements for maths and sciences of any educational system worldwide (aling with Germany, the Benelux and maybe Scandinavia).

France is also the most touristical country in the world with as many annual visitors as inhabitants (60 million). Why ? Because the French have educated their people to respect their national heritage and make the most of it. France has probably more historians and more history-related publications per capita than any other country in the world. Again, that is because children are encouraged to like and learn about history since their childhood.

We can't compare well with Australia, but Japan, which has a millenary cultural heritage as well, has adopted a completely different attitude. Most Japanese don't care and don't know much about history. As a results there is little historical that remains in Japan, as the Japanese have constantly torn down "all these old buildings".One thing I will say in HUGE criticism towards Australia is that our education system, even for those that do history in school all through, doesn't push enough of our historical past. It may have to do with our country be relatively 'peaceful' as far as histories go, with no huge upheavals or revolutions in our short history. But there isn't enough emphasis at all given to our heritage. Famously very few adults here can name our first Prime Minister (Edward Barton), know how damaging White Australia was, why the Eureka Stockade occured or what happened at Glenrowan in 1880.

We place far more emphasis in learning about OTHER nations histories. When we do study Aussie history is always the same stuff. Explorers, Captain Cook and the mistreatment of the Aboriginals.

As for geography, there are about 40 countries in Europe (depends if you count Monaco, the Vatican, etc. as countries) in an area about the same size as Australia. As it is impossible to understand history without knowing where some countries are and what kind of people live there (ethnic groups, languages...), or how the relief and climate may have influence the local culture, battles, or other events, geography is intrinsicly linked to history.

So if you ask me, yes it is important for Europeans to know well about history and geography, and that is why they are compulsory subjects. It is essential to understand how one's neighbours think (cultural differences) and where they come from (socially, politically, ethnically, etc.). That is the same in most of Asia, which is why I said that it was impossible to understand the current problems in the Middle East (Israel, Iraq, Iran... or yesterday's terrorist attack in Turkey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4688575.stm) by Kurdish extremists) without knowing that Iranians, Jewish, Tukish, Kurdish and Arabic people all belonged to different ethnico-linguistic groups. It seems obvious to me because we were taught these things in the compulsory history and/or geography classes.And yu make perfect sense, and I completely agree with you.
My Dad is part of a European 'cultural' group (not going to say which) that has some huge enemies from another 'cultural' group that for a very long time have lived in a rather small patch of land. It's things like that that obviously show the needfor geographical and historical education, at the very least to prevent past mistakes from happening again.

That is why I was surprised that you shouldn't know - but of course if these subjects are not in the compulsory curriculum in Australia, I understand. Maybe Australian people do not need to understand problems in the Middle East. It's so far away, they don't need to care... and it's not like Australia had troops in Iraq or something [sarcastic tone]. It reminds me of Japanese people; everytime something is happening in the world, they go like "nande sonna koto okorun daro ?" (why do such things happen ?), because they don't have the slightest idea of what's going on or about the country's background.I dunno, honestly, I think the Iranian thing would be common enough knowledge for the older people here because of the conflict with Iraq in the 1980's. However at the time I was 6 odd years old. I went through high school at a time when the middle east was 'somewhat' quiet. Therefore the education about that area wasn't as topical and therefore not studied much. I do know that my friends doing history spent a lot of time on the Kashmir conflict, and the fall of Apartheid in Sotuh Africa and a LOT of time studying South East Asian modern history.
I really don't think Aussies care as little as Japanese do, so that comparison isn't valid. We have a huge interest in discussing world events, politics and the like and the media spends a lot of time informing those who want to know about what they should know.

As it was I have never really thought much abour Iran. Its never been a country on my radar so to speak. Not because of ignorance, or because its far away. Just simply because... it hasn't. So even if I learnt about it back in school, I may very well have asked the same question.

To come back to your original question "which education system is better, one that emphasize knowledge, or one that emphasises interpersonal relations. Of course both are important. But the main purpose of school is to learn and understand the world we live in. University takes care of creating specialists to find a job, but school should give the necessary knowledge to be part of society, which includes understanding one's country's own past, one's neighbours and the world we live in. There is no good excuse not to care about that, except if one wants to become a hermit. You're assuming again. You assume a lot for one so enlightened. You seem to think that because one didn't chose a subject in high school that they don't care. That for some reason, because one didn't study geography that they don't care about the rest of the world. By your own reasoning, one who didn't study Sport in school can not possibly be interested in sports. Because I lacked the knowledge that Iranians aren't Arabian, because I didn't study history or geography in school, you have incorrectly assumed that I don't care, or that my peers and I lack a general knowledge.
Thats is EXCEEDINGLY assumptive and is this that leads to the perception Europeans are Arrogant beyond a fault.

The "island mentality" for Australia or Japan is outdated in this age of international communication and globalisation. Japanese people are usually stunned when the Koreans or Chinese protest against their history textbooks or war apologies. Why ? Because they don't learn about that part of history (that's what the protests are about). They may say they don't need China and Korea and can live a perfectly happy life without thinking about them or what their elders did to them 60 years ago.Even in the history that I did study, there were never any punches pulled in terms of Australias mistakes in the past. There is a lot of argument for example that our education system is way too critical of our treatment of the Aboriginal people. I don't believe this is the case. We ****** up royally in our dealings with Australian Indigenous people and we MUST know about that. Ditto for our dealings with the rest of the world and ditto for the actions of the British Empire. I think its the extremely critical nature of our Historical and Geographical studies that makes us not respect our history in Australia. How can we be proud when we are taught to be ashamed of what we have done?

Sidenote. A I understand it, apparantly now in Australia some schools have three subjects.
Geography
History and
Studies of Society.
SoS is a subject more aimed at learning about cultures, Geography is aimed at places and History is the past.

That is the ostrich policy (hehe, another connection with Australia, well "Emu policy" should I say :p ).Hehe, Emus don't put their head in the sand. :cool:

It's not by not caring about one's neighbours that the problems with be solved. Nowadays it is not even about neighbours but any country in the world - as al-Qaeda terrorists remind us. If most people in a country don't understand why they are the target of terrorist attacks, then the chances are that their government has not taught them properly about it - at school or via the media, which is school for adults.Theres been considerable attention paid in recent years to Al Qaeda and their motivation in Australia via the media and from what I gather schools, especially in the aforementioned SoS.

In Australia, I was amazed to see that in many cities the TV news were mainly limted to Australia, with just a brief outline of the few major events in the world (some local channels, not at all). Doesn't that match with the lack of importance attached to the world (history & geography) at school ?Yes and no. You bought up a global village. In making a comfortable village doesn't each person need to have a well maintained house? Its all well and good to worry about the neighbours or the people down the street, but you would do well keeping a close eye on your own garden.
Problem with Aussie TV news bulletins is the majority are 30 minutes long and commercial. Between news, sport and weather, with ad breaks, theres not much time to get involved on any news item. Plus the controlling interest of the Packers and Murdochs. Network news is frankly crap in Australia and is becoming increasingly tabloid.
An informed person here watches ABC and SBS. Both of which spend a lot of time talking about issues here and abroad. The news bulletins are longer. We have the 7:30 report which is primarily Current Affairs for local issues, and Foreign Correspondant, an excellent programme covering International news. Theres Behind the News, a bi-weekly show that explains current news issues for younger people. This is shown a lot in History, Geography AND English classes. SBS is an entire network aimed at international content.


In my school, usually failing a class meant repeating a year if it was a major subject (from 4h/week), with possible exceptions if the grades in other subject were outstanding or if the person failed the exams due to medical or personal reasons (divorce or death in the family, etc.), but the average grades in small tests during the year were good. In a case liket aht, odds are the student could apply for special circumstance hearings. If the reasons were sound what would likely happen is that results of the 'offending' exam or term would be ignored, or the student would go to summer classes before uni began.
In my state in Australia anyway, for the final two years of school, major exams are done every 6 months for a subject and minor exams are done every three months between. so if a student was consistantly good except for one term, thats when SC comes in.

Another major difference is that someone who has repeated a year has little chance to go to university or even get a good job afterward. So nobody repeats a year voluntarily. Which somewhat neagtes the point of repeating does it not? A repeating student has no risk to their future IF they pass everything the second time round, nor do employers care. In fact its becoming increasingly encouraged, or so I've heard.
However in my experience people who repeat usually do worse than the year before, likely because they are treated terribly by other students.

In my case because I failed Chemistry in 11th grade and changed to Earth Science. That screwed my initial plans to enter university. However instead of repeating a whole year of school, I entered university on a different course with similar subjects and upgraded after a year. Much better.

[Mike Cash]

http://tinyurl.com/ckb7a

[PopCulturePooka]

In my eyes that's a bad system.

1.Having common knowledge about things is a must. believe it or not, High School English in Australia helps with a lot of the 'general knowledge' stuff.
Every two months a different thing is studied, maybe a novel, a play, a movie or somesuch. From that original source, discussion and learning is usually spread to other things related to it.
Eg when we studied "The Crucible" it was more akin to History, spending a lot of time discussing McCarthyism and the 'Reds under our bed" nonsense of the 40's and 50's. Our 'assignment' at the end involved researching another modern historical event or period and writing a similar styled story as a metaphor for it. "The Great Gatsby" became more a unit about "the American/Australian dream" amongst other things.
For most Aussie school kids that is what English is. So theres a lot of General Knowledge investigated there using a lit piece as the springboard. The expense? Grammar is only taught in Primary schools and Eigth grade.

2.How the hell does he know he'll never needs it in the future? Are you telling me you people can look into the future?? Thats waht the system assumes.
I do agree with you though. You see a student selects the subjects for 11th and 12 th grade near the end of his 10th grade. He must select subjects that ill get him into his preferred course. So there is a lot of pressure being placed on a 15 year old to decide where will he go. I was lucky in that I knew fairly well what I intended on doing. Other kids weren't. But they were then encouraged to just select the 'basics'. English, Math A or B, a Science, History and/or Geography and one or two more, generally another Science or a 'fun' subject. Doing those would get you into most university courses or set you on the path.

2.People won't even bother to study their own language -> loads of spelling errors and people become illiterate and dependant of programs that check their spelling etc.They hardly (sometimes) can have a decent conversation because they know almost nothing about their language.English IS compulsory. Non-one has a choice, you must do English... Or if you are a complete dunder head, Communication Studies. However like I said, Grammar isn't heavily studied. Leads to... problems.

By the way, before anyone points out the Giant Pink Elephant, yeah my spelling and grammar isn't the best here. But thats because I consider stuff like this informal, and hardly, if ever proof-read what I write, or stop to check for typos etc. When I need too, of course I watch the rules of grammar and check my spelling. Most sane people would.

3.Drama,sports is a thing you specialize in, hardly a course you need in your life unless you want to become an actor or a professional player.The thing is, the person like you said who only studied specific courses for his 'future job/studies' doesn't know anything else.So he won't have the chance to study something different in college/uni or have another job because he simply hasn't been studying for it.Believe it or not, Sports (Health and Physical Education) is a pre-req for many Uni courses. Phys-Ed teaching, Physiotherapy (one of the most popular degrees in Australia. So popular that the marks needed to study it are higher than Med or Law), Tourism (?), Sports Management etc. Drama not so much, but because of whats studied under set Drama syllabus, it can be quite handy for anyone looking at studying any Arts based degree.

Also, changing a univeristy course is quite common in Australia. If you want to change to science after two years of law, but never studied science in high school you can in fact change. Its quite complex to explain why, and you may need to do a few extra classes to brush up your science, but its easy enough to do.

There is too much freedom in that kind of education, people can **** about and still pass the exams, kind of like the Japanese system.What good will it do if you can pass without knowing what you studied :?Hmm I think you mis-interpret. You still must pass the subjects you study.
Eg to do a Bachelor of Applied Science you need at LEAST B's in two sciences, Math B AND English. So in fact you need to better than pass. You need to do WELL in your chosen subjects.
If you don't study, you don't pass the class. You still go the next year, or graduate. But you won't be going to university and many many employers won't be impressed by your horrid grades.
You can only **** around in class if you are smart enough to get good grades. haha eg no way could I **** around in Math B and still hoped to have passed. I would have failed hard. I needed to push myself Hard in Math B to get my B's. But Biology? It was exceptionally easy for me. To the envy of all my friends, including the dux of the school, I got the schools best grades in Biology, while being an absolute clown in class and doing minimal study. Everyone else would push themselves extremely hard in Bio and still couldn't beat me, while I would sleep in classes, study only two nights before the exam etc. It came natural to me. At the end of 12th grade, when giving awards for best in each Subject I turned down the award for Academic Excellence in biology because I KNEW I didn't work for it, so it was given to the 2nd highest mark earner.

[PopCulturePooka]

I totally agree with that. It is very risky to specialise early, especially that teenagers have evolving personalities and needs, and may change completely their fields of interest or ambitions for the future just a few years later (as I did).Like I have said, I agree thats its risky, and a little too much pressure.
But I also said its easy to change course in Uni and its also very easy to enter univeristy at any age.
For example, I'm contemplating returning to university next year to study to be a Librarian and Teacher. I'll be 25, yet I can very easily re-enrol, apply for HECS and go to it. Socially its no problem either. You get all ages at Aussie uni's, from 17 to... heck I knew a 50 year old studying at one point.

In many European countries, most people don't even know for sure what kind of job they want to do in life. If you study chemistry, you might end up working in a bank or as a civil servant.Thats a huge problem here too. There are heaps of people with BArts working with my mum in the Tax Office.

It's fairly clear if you decide to study medicine, then you become a doctor. But what kind of doctor (what speciality) ?Well, being a doctor in Oz is ahrd work indeed. First you apply to do a Bachelor of Science (Medicine). After 3 years you do postgrad study of medicine and the final few years you specialise. Its at LEAST 6 years. It is hard. But...

And what if you fail ?You still have that Bachelor of Science from the first 3 years to do something with.

Belgian universities are so strict that the failure rate is about 50% in the first year and 30% in the second year, the about 5-10%.The failure/drop-out rate is quite similar here.
My final semester of Ecology study had less than 20 people, because of this attrition.

What if you put all your energy in becoming an actor, but never make it through to become popular and are forced to give up. What if you want to become a proffesional athlete but have an accident and must abandon this ambition for a normal job ?Australian Universities don't have sports programs or teams. The sports based and drama based degrees also have more than enough theory based learning to allow you to change track, study more or find a good job related to your dream. Eg you do a Bachelor of the Arts (Drama). The first year and a half will be spent studying the same basic things that a Bachelor of the Arts (English Literature) student would study.
And your question is hypothetical.

What if you study for years in a belgian uni to be a doctor and a piano falls on your hands?

That would be quite bad if you only learned "sports" or useless subjects at school. Anyway, becoming a famous actor or sport star is usually more a dream than something accessible to anybody, even gifted.Check my reply to RockLee regarding this.

Another problem with choosing one's speciality early is that the market demand may change after a few years, and it may be very difficult to find a job in this field.That is a growing concern. The bottom is apparantly falling out of IT graduate job market. Meanwhile the states are desperate for Teachers.

Then as I said, universities should concentrate on the specialisation, not schools. It's already too early for most people at university to see clearly what they want to do in life, let alone younger people.As I said, a student who is unsure is encoruaged to select the 'basic' subjects. He/She will get to uni still. He won't be negatively affected in anyway.


Oh I should take this time before my fingers die to explain something.

In 11th and 12th grade Queensland (my state) students have a massive amount of subjects to choose from. English, Maths, Sciences, arts etc.
However every subject on offer is placed into three categories.

First up is Board Subjects.
A subject for which the course of study is based on a syllabus that has been approved and issued by the Queensland Board of Senior Secondary School Studies.

Board subjects are the 'important' ones. All the basics are here. English, Sciences, Most Maths, History, Geography etc. Also many other ones as well. Speech and Drama, HPE, a lot of business ones etc. I couldn't find a complete list but theres a few. Not all schools offer all Board Subjects.

Next up is Senior Board-Registered
A subject developed by an individual school to meet a need recognised by the school in areas not covered by study area specifications. There are no QBSSSS syllabuses for these subjects. School work programs are developed along guidelines provided by the QBSSSS and submitted for accreditation.

These are subjects designed for students with no univeristy aspirations, or for people who ahve a really heavy workload of board subjects and need a class thats not as stressful. Also students looking at trades and apprenticeships often find subjects here that match their needs. This is where things like "Hiking" would go her, along with 'easy' versions of Board subjects. Eg, English Communication, Consumer Math, Sport (without the physical education and health aspect) etc. Many rural schools especailly have a lot of BR subjects that teach farming and land skills.

Then theres... Other
Includes a range of units/courses/subjects such as TAFE, Australian Music Examinations Board and Study Area Specifications. Really eclectic stuff goes here.

Now whats this got to do with anything?
Regardless of what you intend doing at University, you MUST pass at least 5 board registered subjects to even be allowed to sit the university entrance exams and go to uni straight out of school. So called 'useless' subjects aren't Board subjects and you won't even go to university if you don only them. Board subjects have approved curriculum have some merit or worth the real world.

[Iron Chef]

So, how 'bout them Arabs? 8-p

[RockLee]

believe it or not, High School English in Australia helps with a lot of the 'general knowledge' stuff.
Every two months a different thing is studied, maybe a novel, a play, a movie or somesuch. From that original source, discussion and learning is usually spread to other things related to it.

For most Aussie school kids that is what English is. So theres a lot of General Knowledge investigated there using a lit piece as the springboard. The expense? Grammar is only taught in Primary schools and Eigth grade.
Hmm what about the rest of the world...we actually study more about the rest of the world, and also cover our own country's history.Knowing where Adalaide is on the map is a must as an Australian, but not knowing where for instance Belgium lies is kind of rediculous don't you think (I don't know if this is the case in Australia though)


Believe it or not, Sports (Health and Physical Education) is a pre-req for many Uni courses. Phys-Ed teaching, Physiotherapy (one of the most popular degrees in Australia. So popular that the marks needed to study it are higher than Med or Law), Tourism (?), Sports Management etc. Drama not so much, but because of whats studied under set Drama syllabus, it can be quite handy for anyone looking at studying any Arts based degree.what the...that's stupid.

Also, changing a univeristy course is quite common in Australia. If you want to change to science after two years of law, but never studied science in high school you can in fact change. Its quite complex to explain why, and you may need to do a few extra classes to brush up your science, but its easy enough to do.Here if you want to do another course you need to start over from year 1 again, except if the courses you already did are somewhat in the same league as the course you want to do, then you might have to take entrance exams or something to see if you can manage.But that's highly unlikely ! Going from 1st year X to 2nd year Y sounds pretty rediculous anyways to me.

Hmm I think you mis-interpret. You still must pass the subjects you study.
Eg to do a Bachelor of Applied Science you need at LEAST B's in two sciences, Math B AND English. So in fact you need to better than pass. You need to do WELL in your chosen subjects.
If you don't study, you don't pass the class. You still go the next year, or graduate. But you won't be going to university and many many employers won't be impressed by your horrid grades.
You can only **** around in class if you are smart enough to get good grades. haha eg no way could I **** around in Math B and still hoped to have passed. I would have failed hard. I needed to push myself Hard in Math B to get my B's. But Biology? It was exceptionally easy for me. To the envy of all my friends, including the dux of the school, I got the schools best grades in Biology, while being an absolute clown in class and doing minimal study. Everyone else would push themselves extremely hard in Bio and still couldn't beat me, while I would sleep in classes, study only two nights before the exam etc. It came natural to me. At the end of 12th grade, when giving awards for best in each Subject I turned down the award for Academic Excellence in biology because I KNEW I didn't work for it, so it was given to the 2nd highest mark earner.
That's like the English system then ? You can join a university depending on your highschoolgrades.If you mess them up, Cambridge for instance will be faaar out of your league.If I were you I would have accepted the award, as you obviously (even without working for it) excelled in the course even without studying, that makes you smarter and makes you deserve it.It's not that only hard working people can win awards...at least that's how I look at it.

[PopCulturePooka]

Hmm what about the rest of the world...we actually study more about the rest of the world, and also cover our own country's history.Knowing where Adalaide is on the map is a must as an Australian, but not knowing where for instance Belgium lies is kind of rediculous don't you think (I don't know if this is the case in Australia though)
You gotta admit, it is hard to find Belgium, all hidden away up there near Russia and Paraguay!
:blush:

Actually while I have you, is it true that Belgium is the only European country completely visible from space at night because of a national ordinance that requires all streets have a certain level of lighting? Or was my teacher talking ****?

what the...that's stupid.Makes sense, especially the sport one.
Consider.
Health and Physical Education is NOT just playing sport. You do roughly 2.5 - 3 hours a week for each subject in senior high school right? for HPE 1 hour is dedicated to practical (read playing sports). The other 1.5 - 2 hours is theory. Heavy theory. Things from anatomy and physiology, psychology, sport and culture, history, health etc. 75% of the weighting for the subject is based on the theoretical stuff. So you could suck at sport and still do quite well in the class.
Speech and Drama is not just acting plays. Theres a lot of theory there as well.

Here if you want to do another course you need to start over from year 1 again, except if the courses you already did are somewhat in the same league as the course you want to do, then you might have to take entrance exams or something to see if you can manage.But that's highly unlikely ! Going from 1st year X to 2nd year Y sounds pretty rediculous anyways to me.Oh dude, you misinterpreted. You don't go from 1st year X to 2nd year Y.
You go 1st year X to 1st Year Y. Or 2nd year X to 1st Year Y. Its just quite an easy process to do, and the grades you got in your former course go a long way to improving your chances of entering the newer one.

Eg, like I said. After school, because of chemistry, I didn't QUITE have what was needed to do a bachelor of applied science. I did however easily meet the requirements to study Health Information Management (IE Hospital Records and everything around that). I did a year of that. During that year I studied a few units like Anat and Phys, Medical Fundamentals etc...
By the end of year, after breezing through the first year of HIM I applied to enter the BA Science. Even though I didn't have that High School chem requirement, my studies in HIM were considered instead and I easily had sufficient standards to enter BASci.
So I did. Starting from the 1st year again. It was only a year out of my life, no biggie. Oh and some of those subjects I did in HIM? Eg the Anat? Med Fundamentals? I could use them as credit subjects. In the first year of BASci there were a few quite similar subjects, but I didn't have to do them because I'd already studied some units in the year before in a previous course. So in my first Semester I only did 2 classes not 4. In Semester 2 I did 3/4.


That's like the English system then ? You can join a university depending on your highschoolgrades.If you mess them up, Cambridge for instance will be faaar out of your league.Yeap, exactly. Depending on the courses popularity and the uni's prestige, the entry requirements from High School will be different. Eg to get into the science program at UQ one might need 2 sciences at an A level, Math and English at B. And a Overall Position grade (eg Uni entrance exam) rank of 5. But at the less popular and somewhat remote James Cook Uni you may only need B's in 1 Science, Math and a C in English. And an Overall Postion Grade of 10 (5 is much much better). Why? Because UQ is the better Uni and theres more competition for places.

If I were you I would have accepted the award, as you obviously (even without working for it) excelled in the course even without studying, that makes you smarter and makes you deserve it.It's not that only hard working people can win awards...at least that's how I look at it.In the end what made my decision was the award was a bit of paper. And a fancy pen. Beyond looking ok on a resume it didn't stand for much. It couldnt have affected my entrance chances, my class ranking did that. Would have been forgotten about a few months later.

[Maciamo]

Actually while I have you, is it true that Belgium is the only European country completely visible from space at night because of a national ordinance that requires all streets have a certain level of lighting? Or was my teacher talking ****?

It is true that Belgium is the only country clearly visible from space (at night), but the reason is that all highways are illuminated at night (and you can never be more than 20 or 30km away from a highway anywhere in Belgium).


Health and Physical Education is NOT just playing sport. You do roughly 2.5 - 3 hours a week for each subject in senior high school right?

In my school in Belgium, subjects usually have 2 or 4h per week (no half hour at all), and by taking some options it is possible to have subjects with 5, 6 or 7h/week (usually sciences or maths). In fact, we do have many options, but contrarily to Australia where choosing one subject means eliminating others, most subjects are compulsory with a possibility to choose add weekly hours for our favourite subjects. E.g. we could have 2, 5 or 7h or sciences, and choose for example 3h of chemistry + 1h of physics and 1h of biology (or another setting). It is compulsory to have 2 or 3 foreign languages, but we can choose from about 7 languages, incl. Latin and Ancient Greek. Some people also do psycology or economics, but it's rare (geography already includes macroeconomics).

Oh dude, you misinterpreted. You don't go from 1st year X to 2nd year Y.
You go 1st year X to 1st Year Y. Or 2nd year X to 1st Year Y. Its just quite an easy process to do, and the grades you got in your former course go a long way to improving your chances of entering the newer one.

I think Rocklee misundersood you because in Belgium anybody can go to university and start again any subject as many times as you want (well, there was a period when you could only fail twice). What's more it's almost completely free (about 500 euro per year for registration), not like in the US or Japan where a single year can cost 300,000 euro.

[PopCulturePooka]

It is true that Belgium is the only country clearly visible from space (at night), but the reason is that all highways are illuminated at night (and you can never be more than 20 or 30km away from a highway anywhere in Belgium).
Interesting.
I really should dig up that National Geographic world map I have with the Earth from Space at night.

In my school in Belgium, subjects usually have 2 or 4h per week (no half hour at all), and by taking some options it is possible to have subjects with 5, 6 or 7h/week (usually sciences or maths). In fact, we do have many options, but contrarily to Australia where choosing one subject means eliminating others, most subjects are compulsory with a possibility to choose add weekly hours for our favourite subjects. E.g. we could have 2, 5 or 7h or sciences, and choose for example 3h of chemistry + 1h of physics and 1h of biology (or another setting). It is compulsory to have 2 or 3 foreign languages, but we can choose from about 7 languages, incl. Latin and Ancient Greek. Some people also do psycology or economics, but it's rare (geography already includes macroeconomics).I like that system a lot.

What we had were five to six 35 minute lesson periods. We would generally do two 'doubles' and a single per week for each subject'. A day generally had 8 periods. Although as I understand it now, things are a bit different.

And Latin? In schools? *faints*

Learning Latin was the only reason I stayed awake in Medical Terminology.


I think Rocklee misundersood you because in Belgium anybody can go to university and start again any subject as many times as you want (well, there was a period when you could only fail twice). What's more it's almost completely free (about 500 euro per year for registration), not like in the US or Japan where a single year can cost 300,000 euro.Ditto here.
Its set up so that the only real determining factor to go to uni is your grades. Socio-economic status has no bearing. The poorest student can go to the best uni (barring private ones, which aren't that popular or great) if they get the grades. You can also change and change as much as you want.
What happens here is HECS. The government will basically pay for your tertiary education in the form of a loan. Then, after you graduate and find a job over a certain income threshold (I THINK $32,000 a year) you start to pay back the loan in the form of a higher tax on your salary.
So if you do chop and change a lot, the HECS debt you repay is higher.
Its not an unreasonable system at all, works quite well really as you wont be disadvantaged if you can't find a decently paying job.

Of course the right wing conservative government wants to scrap the scheme and go back to a user pays system, meaning the rich kids can go to uni, the poor kids luck out.

[sabro]

This is all fascinating...all the different school systems. I am sitting in my office- I'm a new high school assistant principal, looking at the variety in the manner of instruction and the curriculum- I still can't picture the Belgian or the Aussie sytems- the hours per week sounds more complicated- in California we just have six or seven periods per day- one hour each. (Some schools have block scheduling.) Somehow in California, we left geography entirely out of the curriculum. Go figure.

My son has an excellent GPA (3.5) and good SAT scores (about 1200) but he probably can't get into a top college (UC system). He can get into the Cal State system. We also have many expensive private colleges and the community college system which is inexpensive and non-exclusive.

[Mycernius]

I was wondering, I did notice that some Europeans I've have wonderful knowledge of history, geography and other subjects. So, I was wondering, how do Europeans measure intelligence?
We have wars. That way we get rid of all the dumb people :D

[Maciamo]

What we had were five to six 35 minute lesson periods. We would generally do two 'doubles' and a single per week for each subject'. A day generally had 8 periods. Although as I understand it now, things are a bit different.

In my school in Belgium, we had 32 to 34h/week in total depending on the year and options. So 7 or 8h/day, except Wednesday when it was only 4h the morning. "1h" was actually 50min.

And Latin? In schools? *faints*

Most Europeans school still teach Latin and Greek - ask Thomas, who had 6 years of Latin in Austria. Up to the 1970's or 80's about half of the people chose Latin (Latin + Maths, or Latin + Greek) in what is called "grammar schools" In the UK. Nowadays, fewer people learn Latin and Greek. In my school, about 1/4 had Latin for 6 years and 1/8 had Greek for 4 years. Modern languages and sciences are now much more popular.

[kirei_na_me]

My high school offered Latin when I was there, and still does, I think.

[thomas]

Most Europeans school still teach Latin and Greek - ask Thomas, who had 6 years of Latin in Austria.

Seven years in fact, and I haven't regretted it a single day. :cool:

[Ma Cherie]

I'm surprised that some of you never had Geography in your school ciriculum. I had taken Geography my seventh year of middle school, and I know some high school freshman had taken Geography. Strange. :souka: That's cool that you learned Latin, thomas. Nowadays Latin and Greek are offered at the university level. I also had to take two years of French to get into the University of Missouri Kansas City (UMKC).

Oh, well I guess alot of schools are different.

[sabro]

I had geography back in the seventh grade.

I'm currently looking through the California Frameworks for all the different subjects- and social sciences has World, US and California History, Economics and Principles of Democracy. These are the guides that set the stadards and outline the curriculum that we teach. There are geography components but no specific study of lands, cultures or people. We have a geography elective. The science framework leaves out dinosaurs.

Our school does not have any courses in Latin. We have Spanish and French, but also no German. (We could actually have a Native American languages class if the kids want it.) Students are encouraged to take two years of a foreign language. It is a UC requirement, and may one day be a graduation requirement.

[Ma Cherie]

What about anything that involves the arts? I know most of you may have taken an art class, music classes, and perhaps even theater. :cool: I've been taking these kind of classes throughout my school career, and mainly because I went to a performing arts school. You had to major in something like, music, vocal music, creative writing, theater (which is what I majored in) :p and visual arts. Goodness, some of my friends who were visual art majors took some cool classes, like ceramics. Well anyway it was fun being in plays, I was in a play called The Tap Dance Kid. But up until high school I had learn about Shakespeare and Old English. That was hard, but my acting teacher said we had to learn it.

Well I'm just blabbing about my school days. I'll shut up now. :sorry:

[Maciamo]

What about anything that involves the arts? I know most of you may have taken an art class, music classes, and perhaps even theater.

In Belgium, the arts and sports are usually extra-curriclar activities, so that each person can decide what kind of art and sport they want to do, and at what level. Music, drawning, drama, etc. are all popular, but not everybody like them, so only those who like do it on Wednesday afternoon or Saturday. Apart from football (soccer) and basketball, individual sports are the most popular in Belgium and thus difficult to play at school (tennis, cycling, martial arts, climbing...), although all schools have swimming, running, gymnastics, basketball and football in sports class from grade 1 to 12. There are however no inter-school tournament like in the US or Japan.

[sabro]

To graduate in California, you need to take a year of physical education and several fine art, industrial art or foreign language electives. You get to choose which ones, but you have to take a certain number. each one of our classes is roughly one hour per day, five days a week, twenty weeks in a semester. It adds up to ninety hours of instruction to earn five units and you need 230 units and passing scores on the exit exam to earn a diploma.

Lately we have been cutting back on home economics, drivers training and shop classes and adding remedial reading, study skills and test preparation classes. In high school, we no longer give math credits for any class lower than Algebra.

[lexico]

It's difficult to generalize all the teachers and professors I've had; I can only say they were as diverse as people outside the teaching profession. It would be nice if I could say that aggressive teaching and effective teachig had no correlation at all, but sadly the better informed and preceptive teachers tended to rely less on threatening methods and punishments, while yakuza drop out types who must have cheated their way into the school system were usually ignorant, unskilled teachers.

I have always loved the smarter ones for 1) the satisfaction of receiving their expertise 2) the general perceptiveness with which they understood various points of interest that either they provided or presented by me or others. Combined, the 'better teachers' were usually more successful in conducting a meaningful class, while the 'poorer ones' had nothing better to contribute often making them errupt for a microscopic offense.

There was one history teacher who was passionate, and gave heavy physical punishments for failed memorization of historical years. But despite the terror and hard work, I only remember one date from his class, and that has proven incorrect ! I would say having smarts is good, but letting passion take over reason is NOT the way to go.

This does not mean that a smart teacher was all happy and hippie; in fact they were by far the more discriminating of the details. An exceptional case when a gentle approach was applied to a bullshitting student who raised a truly dumb question; obviously the student hadn't done his reading, and naturally couldn't understand the lecture, but he was shameless enough to raise the question regardless.

I expected some amount of surprise, ridicule, or at least a formal warning to come to class prepared. Instead, the instructor took the dumb question as an opportunity to educate everyone. I could only admire the instructor's expert knowledge both in his field of study and in teaching skill. It taught me that ridiculing is not only a waste of everyone's time, but also destroying the opportunity to convey more understanding that was outside the planned lecture for the day.

I would say just having one detail being pointed out as inaccurate is enough cause for alarm for the original poster. But that could be related to my personality. I would think for the younger students, some pushing is inevitable because they are easily influenced by the environment-- heat, humidity, noise, games and whatnot. As for students in the higher teens and above shaming can often backfire.

[lexico]

http://tinyurl.com/ckb7a

Ostriches don’t bury their heads in the sand at all...
when an ostrich can’t run away, it lays down to make itself as small as possible, with their neck and head stretched out flat in front of them...
ostriches don’t live in the sand dunes, they are native to African plains.That sounds like a good case of myth-breaking, as are the case with the trochilus bird that supposedly cleans the crocodile gums of leeches or the crying crocks.As it (the crocodile) lives chiefly in the river, it has the inside of its mouth constantly covered with leeches; hence it happens that while all the other birds and beasts avoid it, with the trochilus it lives at peace since it owes much to that bird: for the crocodile, when it leaves the water and comes out on land, is in the habit of lying with its mouth wide open, facing the western breeze. At such times the trochilus goes into its mouth and devours the leeches. This benefits the crocodile that is pleased and takes care not to hurt the trochilus.This statement on thge trochilus bird by Herodotus was proven to be *incorrect observation. But what of the expression of burying one's head in the sand ? Is there a worthy substitute for this humorous and readily understood expression ? If nothing else suffices, there is the pheasant that is known to hide its head in a hole or in the bushes. I hope this doesn't prove yet another myth.

edit: *incorrect observation: My info appears to be outdated, and now there are claims to the contrary. Any opinions on the crocodile bird ? Is it imagined, real, extinct, or more than one species ? Or was the croc a mistranslation of frog ?

[Apollo]

Where I come from, people who want to study technical subjects can choose a technical orientation with more emphasis on practical (as opposed to theoretical) sciences, and fewer hours of arts, languages or others.


In Denmark, the educational system is the same as you refer to I think. After pupils have finished their secondary education, they can choose to enter one of the three types of high schools in Denmark – which all put emphasis on the theoretical sciences.
The first “type” of high school is the most popular, which puts emphasis on general upper-secondary education such as:

First Year:
PE (B-level)
Danish Literature (A-level)
History (A-level)
Biology (B)
Music (C-level)
Latin (C-level)
German/French/Italian/Spanish/Russian/Japanese (some few high schools offer Japanese) --- (all B-levels).
Maths (B-level)
English (A-level)
Physics (B-level)
Chemistry (B-level)

Second Year:
PE (B-level)
Danish Literature (A-level)
History (A-level)
Geography (B-level)
German/French/Italian/Spanish/Russian/Japanese (B-level)
Maths (B-level)
Physics (B-level)
One elective: Film, Biology advanced, Latin, Economics, political science, Astronomy, computer sciences, design, drama, philosophy, Ancient Greek, Media studies, and psychology.

Third Year:
PE (B)
Danish Literature (level A)
History (level A)
Religious studies (B)
Arts (B)
Ancient Civilisation (B)
And THREE electives, Two at A-level at least of the elective subjects above, including maths, physics, chemistry, and A-level languages :English, German/French/Italian/Latin etc.. (which were mandatory only in first and second years).

In general, of the FOUR elective subjects the students can take through their time at high school, THREE of them must be Advanced levels, and only the theoretical electives offer A-levels. I.e. one cannot take A-level in drama.

Of the electives I took political science with economics (A-level), English (A-level) computer sciences.

The two other types of high schools are:-Technical high schools (concentrating on engineering subjects, maths, physics, computer sciences), however, English and other teoretical subjects are taught too.
-Business high schools concentrating on economics, marketing, maths, (however, other subjects are taught too).


I don't threaten people like some of my teachers did. As I said it's not arrogance but strictness, which is necessarily in any good education system. I did learn more with strict teachers than with others.


I agree totally! My strictest teachers in high school and lecturers at university I had the highest respect for, and I learned more from them.
I remember we had a very strict lecturer during my undergraduate course – she had “tests”, and we were all so frightened of her that we always came prepared for her classes. The most funny thing is, we all did excellent at exams because we studied so hard afraid of failing her class. :wave:

[Apollo]

Oops!

Sorry for the double post, I forgot to mention that in Denmark, all schools are controlled by the Ministry of Education, who keeps statistics of all schools regarding grades during exams.
These statistics are made public on the Ministry's website, so parents/students can look their school up and compare with other schools in the country.
This in a way might make people think that the educational system is too controlled by the government in Denmark, however, I believe it is a good way of keeping track of all schools in the country. These statistics of course respect (or at least try to respect) the number of peers in each school, the private school vs. public schools etc., which might make the statistical data result in very differing results depending on cases.

This is only a generalised view of each school of course; e.g. a posh, private school with the best teachers in the country might have a class consisting of only troublemakers and lazy truants resulting in a bad exam results. However, it is a good guide, and very interesting that some schools in a specific geographical area do poorly - e.g. a part of Copenhagen which is known for its high crime rate and where less-resourced parents represent the majority of the inhabitants.

The troublesome effect this "guide", or publicised stats have is of course the fact that resourceful parents might transfer their children to another school with better grades too often, which might be miles away, resulting in higher transportation costs. One must not rely too much on the stats, but only as a guidance.

If you can read Danish, here is the link to the stats: http://www.uvm.dk/statistik/karakterer/skoler.htm?menuid=55

[sabro]

Each state in the US is in charge of its own schools. Most public schools belong to school districts that answer to local school boards.

California publishes a ranking and stats on every public school in the state (http://www.cde.ca.gov/). Most schools also put out a school report card on the web.

Almost all the high schools in California are "comprehensive" high schools that present a broad curriculum designed to prepare students for college. To graduate with a diploma in the State of California you need to pass the California State Exit Exam- which tests proficiency in reading, writing and mathematics.

You also need 230 units- (56 classes) at five units per class per semester. Most schools have two semesters per year and summer school. Most students take six classes per semester. These are arranged in six one hour "periods" five days per week. Each semester course is about 90 hours of in class instruction. The courses look something like this:

English 8 semesters
World Civilization 2 semesters
US History 2 semesters
Government 1 semester
Economics 1 semester
Algebra and Geometry 4 semesters
Life Science 2 semesters
Physical science 2 semesters
Physical education 4 semesters
Visual or performing arts 2 semesters
Foreign language 2 semesters
applied arts 2 semesters
health 2 semesters
and electives 12 semesters

I hope someone finds this interesting.

[Pararousia]

We have wars. That way we get rid of all the dumb people
We have the Marines :D

It's always been amazing to me how posters can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...
arguing one subject...sounds like verbal diarrhea to me :D

[lexico]

It's always been amazing to me how posters can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...
arguing one subject...sounds like verbal diarrhea to me :DInteresting point; whereas some arguments are concentrated on the topic, some like yours refer to the discussion itself--this meta-linguistic activity is only possible by beings capable of handling abstract symbolism as opposed to representative symbolism seen in the refelexes of an amoeba.

Another aspect unique to life and higher-order objects is creativity. What may appear as repetition when seen from a distance actually has a great deal of variation when seen in close view. Some physical objects show only the former as in chrystals, and some such as the wandering planets show both; regular elliptic orbit and small irregular perturbation, the latter often leading to the discovery of previously unknown planets in relative proximity.

In the case of code strings that make up this thread, the perturbations are what gives the individual world represented its individuality reflecting the respective culture and person. Given generally equal amounts of info and level of organization, it is much easier to participate in the debate than it is to decipher the product of debate-- and you are not alone in the struggle of code breaking. "What the heck are these people talking about ?" But when tge code is broken and the fine points are perceived then it become quite exciting to follow.

Verbal diarrhea is in fact good--what better way to release the congested information within the head, a book, or some remote server ? The opposite state of verbal constipation can often lead to isolation, frustration, antagonism, and even madness. Release the words and give them freedom ! :D

[sabro]

I think my extended posts may be a by-product of mild obsessive compulsive disorder. For no good reason I not only have to throw in my whole two cents, but the rest of the dollar as well.

(Flip on the light...Wash my hands, flip off the light, flip on the light...Wash my hands, flip off the light, flip on the light...)

[Duo]

Interesting discussion. School is very important yes, but it is not the sole factor by which people can come to knowledge or ability or sucess or what have you. I feel sometimes we place too much of an emphasis on school and records instead of stopping for a second and taking a look at the person''s general abilities. Dubbya finished at Yale but look at his basic knoweldge, it probaply is less than that of an average graduate from a most mediocre university of any western nation, or eastern for that matter ;)

And look at Churchill, from what i know he poorly finished his studies and he was one of the great leaders that saved Europe from Nazi Germany.

I feel lately school are sort of loosing their way and becoming places where kids feel more trapped and don't respect their teachers because they are either too old, or use old fashion methods. This is a serious problem here in Belgium. Between new young teachers and the old ones there is a rift on how to deal with the new generation. The ministry of education has already started to make reforms, but as long as teachers don't adapt into this new era and as long as students are not taught respect for the teaching profession we will have more problems

[Duo]

We have the Marines :D




That's not as funny as you think, a friend of mine who's very smart and bright is a marine and in Iraq right now......

:okashii:

[Maciamo]

Interesting discussion. School is very important yes, but it is not the sole factor by which people can come to knowledge or ability or sucess or what have you. I feel sometimes we place too much of an emphasis on school and records instead of stopping for a second and taking a look at the person''s general abilities.

I totally agree. I estimate that school and university combined have only taught me about 1/3 of everything I know, and not the most important. I'd say the most important things I have learned at school were to read and write, learn my mother tongue's grammar, mathematics, the basics in sciences, history and geography. Regarding foreign languages, over 80% of the 6 languages I have learned were learned outside school, mostly by studying by myself and living in the country. So school was really useless for that, eventhough my school was famous for foreign languages. Over half of my knowledge of geography and economics and 3/4 of my knowledge of history were learned by myself (books, magazines, internet, travelling, etc.). I have never learned about computers, webdesign, etc. at school - 100% by myself or from friends.


And look at Churchill, from what i know he poorly finished his studies and he was one of the great leaders that saved Europe from Nazi Germany.

Many great men in history leanred most of their knowledge by themselves as autodidacts. This is also true of Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, William Shakespeare, and many more. Autodidacts are "self-thinkers" and usually develop a unique personality and view of the world.

My argument so far in favour of stricter school teaching in the fields of history and geography is because I am appalled at the poor general knowledge of a big part of the population. For example, I found it quite basic at school (when I was 14) to have to remember the names of all the countries in the world, their capitals, as well as the main rivers, mountains and lakes, but this seem to be already too much for many adults is so called "developed countries" (which visibly does not mean intellectually developed, but just materially). Because I am interested in geography, I have learned much more than that, including the population of the world's biggest cities (with and without suburbs), the states of federal countries, the type of political system, age of consent, legal age for drinking, driving, etc. (of course not for all countries, but I have a fairly good idea for OECD countries. This should be left to people who are interested in such statistics, but knowing the world's countries and be able to place them (at least approximately for tiny ones) on a world map is a minimum.

It's more difficult to set the minimum for history, as it also depends on the country.

I also don't understand why so much emphasis is put in mathematics nowadays. For me, "highschool maths" is like Latin and Greek, a mostly useless subject for living and working. It "forms the spirit", as they say, but so do debate classes, or learning about history, geography, economics, psychology, sciences or modern languages. Memorising theorems is surely useless and should be left for those studying scientific subjects at university. I am saying this despite of the fact that I was pretty good at maths. Maths is at best a hobby for those who like it, but really useless for those not using it in their job (and these jobs get fewer and fewer with computers calculating for us).

Because I know from experience that learning languages does not work 1/10 as well at school as living in the country where it is spoken, I would suggest that highschool students should spend one or two semester(s) abroad (or in another part of the country where another language is spoken in the case of Canada, Belgium Switerland, etc.) rather than learn the language in their home country's school. This would be fairly easy in Europe, as the curriculum are already standardised and the diplomas mutually recognised.

Therefore, I would reduce dramatically maths and languages in the current curriculum, put more emphasis on geography, economics, psychology, philosophy and sciences, with options allowing student to get more weekly hours of their favourite subjects. Every student would be obliged to spend 1, 2 or even 3 semesters in a school in another language before completing highschool.

[Duo]

Yes I totally agree with you on the mathematics part. For me for example it was always and has been a burden. I agree about langauges. I feel languages are a real treasure because they open doors to so many things. They open the path to knowledge to a different culture that could be rich with great literature and what not... so by all means go out there and start to learn. I feel that the best and quickest way to learn a language is to be in the environemnt where it is spoken. Learning a foreign language back home will hardly ever be successful.

Right now i'm tryin to perfect my french and after that I don't know i'm tempted to enter spanish seeing as knowing Italian it comes very easy to understand and wil help me to learn it quicker. I really like languages. Whenever I'm in a foreign country or with foreign friends I always try to pick up a few words. When I was in Turkey for 10 days I got quite good at learning the routine words and could at times get the meaning of a small exchange of words from recongnizing one and by deducing the intent from the tone and body actions. I'm talkin small things here. Also this year I had many chinese students in my french course and so I always bugged them to teach me stuff and can know have some basic phrases at my disposal from hello to i think you have a nice haircut :p

If one learns a latin language I feel that really helps seeing as in English may complicated words come from latin roots. Knowing Italian before I really began to learn English helped quite often in some situations. For example the word incandescent, I could clearly make it out meant fiery, prompt to ignite because it means the same in Italian and is written almost the same.

[lexico]

The essense of mathematical learning is the freedom of the mind, according to Gauss (or was it Kantor ?)--anyway, early exposure to counting, drwaing, and sculpting leading to arithmetic and geometry leading to Cartesian math, calculus, and analysis is one way to achieve intellectual independence. Only after becoming comfortable with these ideas (not so difficult at all...good stuff, actually !) can one not be intimidated by the achievements of human civilization in the sciences. It's all achieveable within the 12 yrs of compulsory education given the right kind of curriculum and skilled, dedicated teachers. Going for a weaker math curriculum is NOT the solution, but to raise competent teachers is the solution imo. :)

[Tsuyoiko]

I think it is often difficult for highly intelligent people to make themselves understood, and this frustration can come across as arrogance.

I certainly wouldn't support a weaker Maths curriculum. At high school my parents had to fight for the school to run a Mathematics course that would get me into University to study Mathematics, as I was the only student who had sufficient grades. In the end six students took it and we all passed. A weaker curriculum might help those who find Maths difficult, but it would be disastrous for anyone with a gift for the subject. The same goes for any subject I suppose - a curriculum should be broad enough to give everyone a sound basis, and deep enough to allow everyone's gifts to shine.

[Maciamo]

Maybe maths should only be an option after primary school. This way, the number of teachers would also diminish, and only the best ones would stay to teach motivated students. If maths is so useful in life, the bunch of dismissed maths teachers will have no problem finding a new job. ;-)

[Tsuyoiko]

Ah, but why does something have to be useful for life to be worth learning? I have a degree in Mathematics and Philosophy, neither of which I use to any significant degree in life, both of which were fascinating for me to learn. Now I am learning Japanese just for something to do.

[PopCulturePooka]

Funnily enough I ntoiced Maciamo mentioned Greek.
I would say that in parts of Australia (Melbourne) Greek would be quite an important language to learn.

[lexico]

Are we talking about Classical Greek, biblical/koine Greek, or Modern Greek :?

[PopCulturePooka]

Are we talking about Classical Greek, biblical/koine Greek, or Modern Greek :?
Modern, so I'll assume Big Mac is talking about ancient greek.

Hmm I know a guy with a masters degree in philosophy and ancient greek.
He works in tax office and my mother bosses him around.

[Tsuyoiko]

I am a bit like your mother's minion. I too work in a dead end job, despite my good education.

[lexico]

Thanks for sharing that, Pooka, Tsuyoiko. I had an English T.A. who was a classicist, and he was so young yet knowledgeable, and creative, too. I had almost forgotten about Homeric Greek which might have some practical use in a pre-classical Greek theater for the Homeric pieces. A researcher from University of London would give a lecture on how the Homeric poems sounded like !

A good education is never lost; it's worth lies in itself. A good day at work serving a non-classicist boss is really no great insult to the classicist. For when the work is done, (s)he can retire into his smalll library and once again jump into the ancient world before all these annoying modern conveniences cluttered our heads. But to have experienced the time, space and people with deep understanding; it is definitely rewarding given the short life span of us mortals. If we can agree that we are here to enjoy life for all it's worth; not for some high paying job to the exclusion of other human pursuits. :blush:

[Tsuyoiko]

Thank you Lexico. I wish more people felt that way. If I had a quid for every time someone said "But couldn't you get a better job?" I wouldn't need to work at all!

[Apollo]

My high school maths was a waste of time basically, as I don't have use for it now, and didn't use it through uni either.....

Life experience teaches me more than school too, I would say that school has inspired me to learn more though, e.g. I studied history for 6 years at two different universities in order to get a research degree, however, at first I only chose the subject because our history teacher at high school inspired me to study this subject....

For me, history should be a compulsory subject always, as history is an interdisciplinary subject mixing many academic subjects: political science, economics, linguistics, anthropology, geography..and many more depending on case.

Funny enough, I don't work with history today, having done the history teaching and working at arsenal museum, PR for defence commando - I chose a different field: communications consulting in an international company!!!

Now I keep contact with "my subject" a