10 ms·

Once change became the norm (probably the 1970s) this was probably the case all over the world. Given that it's pretty difficult to change school curricula and

Once change became the norm (probably the 1970s) this was probably the case all over the world. Given that it's pretty difficult to change school curricula and retrain all your teachers, what does anyone expect? In any event, it's not the purpose of education to be great vocational training. The problem in the US isn't that schools are training kids for a world that doesn't exist, it's that they are training kids to pass idiotic multiple-choice tests.

ekianjo 12y ago
Oh, that's far from being a US-only problem. Japan is all about passing stupid tests as well (and studying really hard to be the best at it, because, you know, it's important to be the first at nonsensical things), with little regard to actual professional prospects.
thebradbain 12y ago
A college representative for Durham University in the UK told me the entire British system is more focused on test scores than the US is, which is why for an American applying to UK schools much more weight is placed on SAT scores and AP tests than extracurriculars, essays, recommendations, and qualitative achievements compared to US schools.
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  Test scores and grades are far better criteria than that socioeconomic nonsense. It would be better if American colleges admitted purely on academic factors. They'd also get better students, even if they'd lose their elitist "mystique". I think that the extracurricular "holistic" component is deeply harmful. If the top universities admitted on academic criteria, then Americans would accept that not everyone good-- because there clearly are good students who aren't great at standardized tests; "not a good test-taker" is a real thing-- goes to Harvard (which is true anyway) and get over it. I certainly know smart people who were mediocre students in high school. The extracurricular bullshit (which is, in fact, heavily socioeconomic and racial and always has been) is a bit of branding that works wonders on 17-year-old kids, and their parents, by creating the appearance that college admissions are a "holistic" judge of the applicant as a person. It's brilliant insofar as it drives up tuitions (even at less prestigious schools) but it's really bad for society.
WalterBright 12y ago
Change became the norm around 1800 in the US. 1800-1900 saw absolutely spectacular changes in the US, in the way people work and live, at all levels of society, and that continued on unabated after 1900.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  Sure but the modern school system was designed to produce workers for the industrial age. The information age accelerated change to the point where the stuff that was current while you were in college was already obsolete by the time you graduated (and since you were being trained on the previous generation of tech you were two steps behind). Before 1970 a typesetter learned to work with the flaws in his/her typefaces. After 1980 a typesetter complained and the got fixed. After 1990 the typesetter fixed them him/her self.

ekianjo 12y ago

Oh, that's far from being a US-only problem. Japan is all about passing stupid tests as well (and studying really hard to be the best at it, because, you know, it's important to be the first at nonsensical things), with little regard to actual professional prospects.

thebradbain 12y ago

A college representative for Durham University in the UK told me the entire British system is more focused on test scores than the US is, which is why for an American applying to UK schools much more weight is placed on SAT scores and AP tests than extracurriculars, essays, recommendations, and qualitative achievements compared to US schools.

michaelochurch 12y ago
Test scores and grades are far better criteria than that socioeconomic nonsense. It would be better if American colleges admitted purely on academic factors. They'd also get better students, even if they'd lose their elitist "mystique". I think that the extracurricular "holistic" component is deeply harmful. If the top universities admitted on academic criteria, then Americans would accept that not everyone good-- because there clearly are good students who aren't great at standardized tests; "not a good test-taker" is a real thing-- goes to Harvard (which is true anyway) and get over it. I certainly know smart people who were mediocre students in high school. The extracurricular bullshit (which is, in fact, heavily socioeconomic and racial and always has been) is a bit of branding that works wonders on 17-year-old kids, and their parents, by creating the appearance that college admissions are a "holistic" judge of the applicant as a person. It's brilliant insofar as it drives up tuitions (even at less prestigious schools) but it's really bad for society.

WalterBright 12y ago

Change became the norm around 1800 in the US. 1800-1900 saw absolutely spectacular changes in the US, in the way people work and live, at all levels of society, and that continued on unabated after 1900.

Tloewald 12y ago
Sure but the modern school system was designed to produce workers for the industrial age. The information age accelerated change to the point where the stuff that was current while you were in college was already obsolete by the time you graduated (and since you were being trained on the previous generation of tech you were two steps behind). Before 1970 a typesetter learned to work with the flaws in his/her typefaces. After 1980 a typesetter complained and the got fixed. After 1990 the typesetter fixed them him/her self.