3 ms·

I don't see what's specifically American about that. It's far worse in Asia, for one. I imagine it may have been better in Fuller's younger days.

by ramchip 13y ago

pnathan 13y ago
Honestly, I can't speak to non-US schools. They might be better, worse, etc. I hear both. I do know about American - well, USA - schools. So I circumscribe my speech to ensure correctness. Can you write a bit about what makes Asia far worse?
- chunky1994 13y ago
  I think the majority of schools have two ways for students to get through schools. One would be to skirt the system, prepare for exams, and basically retain hardly anything.(This happens extremely often now, especially because of the number of smart yet not-so-determined kids who can get away with coasting, but they don't realize that it'll cost them later. American schools tend to be lenient on the amount of time required to be spent on school work which allows them leeway to pursue things interesting projects if they are so motivated. The second is to actually learn the material and work your way through it, thus being able to handle the exams well, and getting something out of your education. The large part of why students pick the first option is most of the time the material is not very challenging and students find it much easier to slack off than take an initiative to go above and beyond the standard curricula. The flipside occurs in Asian schools, where while the material is not challenging, it does take a lot of time and effort (not mental, but just constant work) to do well, and survive. This albeit crushes the innovative side that students should nurture at a high school level.
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  If you're interested in education systems in other countries, then you may find this post, by an ex-lecture/prof from the UK talking about why he's not a lecturer any more, interesting: http://web.archive.org/web/20080709051840/http://www.lambdassociates.org/Blog/decline.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20080709051840/http://www.lambdas... ^_^
- ramchip 13y ago
  I can't speak for all countries either, but I live in Japan and study in general is very test-oriented (see Juku aka cram school, etc.) Students graduate university with little applied skills, so companies recruit with mostly little regard for the major (just a general separation humanities/science) then spend 1-2 years training them. University is in many regards a place where students learn how to fit in society. Getting in a good university, i.e. passing the very difficult admission test, mostly guarantees that you'll get a degree. When I was a student here I had a class where you could get an A for submitting a copy of your notes, no test, no homework. A lot more had tests with "fill in the blanks" questions. Then there was the rare few classes which actually made you think, but in my experience these were at the graduate level.

I don't see what's specifically American about that. It's far worse in Asia, for one. I imagine it may have been better in Fuller's younger days.

by ramchip 13y ago

I don't see what's specifically American about that. It's far worse in Asia, for one. I imagine it may have been better in Fuller's younger days.

pnathan 13y ago

Honestly, I can't speak to non-US schools. They might be better, worse, etc. I hear both. I do know about American - well, USA - schools. So I circumscribe my speech to ensure correctness. Can you write a bit about what makes Asia far worse?

chunky1994 13y ago
I think the majority of schools have two ways for students to get through schools. One would be to skirt the system, prepare for exams, and basically retain hardly anything.(This happens extremely often now, especially because of the number of smart yet not-so-determined kids who can get away with coasting, but they don't realize that it'll cost them later. American schools tend to be lenient on the amount of time required to be spent on school work which allows them leeway to pursue things interesting projects if they are so motivated. The second is to actually learn the material and work your way through it, thus being able to handle the exams well, and getting something out of your education. The large part of why students pick the first option is most of the time the material is not very challenging and students find it much easier to slack off than take an initiative to go above and beyond the standard curricula. The flipside occurs in Asian schools, where while the material is not challenging, it does take a lot of time and effort (not mental, but just constant work) to do well, and survive. This albeit crushes the innovative side that students should nurture at a high school level.
6d0debc071 13y ago
If you're interested in education systems in other countries, then you may find this post, by an ex-lecture/prof from the UK talking about why he's not a lecturer any more, interesting: http://web.archive.org/web/20080709051840/http://www.lambdassociates.org/Blog/decline.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20080709051840/http://www.lambdas... ^_^
ramchip 13y ago
I can't speak for all countries either, but I live in Japan and study in general is very test-oriented (see Juku aka cram school, etc.) Students graduate university with little applied skills, so companies recruit with mostly little regard for the major (just a general separation humanities/science) then spend 1-2 years training them. University is in many regards a place where students learn how to fit in society. Getting in a good university, i.e. passing the very difficult admission test, mostly guarantees that you'll get a degree. When I was a student here I had a class where you could get an A for submitting a copy of your notes, no test, no homework. A lot more had tests with "fill in the blanks" questions. Then there was the rare few classes which actually made you think, but in my experience these were at the graduate level.