The awful Education system of the US

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Really? How about pretty much every great mind prior to the twentieth century?

Gregor Mendel?

Mendel would, had he been alive when more knowledge of the cosmos was available, not have accepted a young earth. As a man of science -- while being a man of religion as well -- he would have adjusted. Truly intelligent people do this.

And that is the point I've been trying to make.

 

[Shaul]

What I was telling you was my experience taking an AP biology class. My freshman biology teacher did teach it. Not the one I had for a higher level. She skipped evolution because it makes no sense and god did it - no lie, no exaggeration. I didn't know much about evolution then, but the other 3 students in that class agreed with the teacher.Andshe was good after two years due to a number of complaints.

Like I wrote, an anecdote. The simple fact is that the AP Biology exam has Natural Selection (evolution) has one of its units.
AP Biology – AP Students – College Board
Any AP Biology class that doesn’t cover it would be de-certified. If some exception occurs that a teacher didn’t cover it, it would be just that, an exception. An exception that doesn’t really indicate much beyond that. It certainly doesn’t indicate some rampant movement of Creationists attempting to undermine teaching evolution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Like I wrote, an anecdote. The simple fact is that the AP Biology exam has Natural Selection (evolution) has one of its units.
AP Biology – AP Students – College Board
Any AP Biology class that doesn’t cover it would be de-certified. If some exception occurs that a teacher didn’t cover it, it would be just that, an exception. An exception that doesn’t really indicate much beyond that. It certainly doesn’t indicate some rampant movement of Creationists attempting to undermine teaching evolution.

That's basically what it was. It wasnt an attempt to hijack a school board, but yet evolution was undermined in favor of creationism.

 

[Estro Felino]

I repeat. Some of the most erudite and knowledgeable people in the world have been YEC's. that does not affect their ability to read, to write or do math. Young Earth Creationism is a religious concept and has nothing at all to do with the problems education has.

Though I agree that it should not be taught in public schools, and in fact, is not so taught in any public school I've ever been to or associated with.

YEC is merely cultural....it is indicative of how influential the Bible (particularly the KJV) in the American cultural mindset has been.

ÝEC in Europe has become unthinkable since the 19th century. When European anthropology flourished in a very vivid way, it nurtured every aspect of cultural life, even politics (if we think of how Anthropological Darwinism influenced Fascism and Nazism ).
Kafka's Report for am Academy is an example of that.

 

[epronovost]

Really? How about pretty much every great mind prior to the twentieth century?

The problem with your argument is that the same can be made with literacy and arythmetics and brilliant minds. Education doesn't make brilliant people. It fosters brilliant people. Back in the 18th century knowing about what we call today basic science wasn't all that important, but today it is. Having a poor science education is terrible. How can you train geneticist or doctors in large numbers if you struggle to make people understand basic concept like evolution?

 

[epronovost]

However, if math teachers salaries were increased to that of data scientists, programmers, engineers, etc, then high schools could have a chance at getting more qualified teachers that understand the subject on a deeper level, since the would-be data scientists/software enginner math majors would actually consider teaching as a profession.

While I generally agree with the sentiment and the proposal, there is an extra issue. "Knowing your stuff" is likely to make you a good teacher, but you can be a genius in a field and still be a miserable teacher. To be a good teacher, a truly good teacher, you need to both know your stuff really well, but also be good with people. You have to be able to explain it to people who have no interest in learning in the first place and might actually actively try to undermine your efforts. That's another kind of game.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I haven't. It is not the teacher's fault, but the educational system. If you took offense to it, then that was because of your personal interpretation of it.



Perhaps liberal arts subjects differ from STEM. For instance, at the university I went to (an above average medium-sized school in the midwest), we had mathematics degrees and mathematics education degrees. The math ed major was a watered down (easier) version of the mathematics major which I got my degree in, with a few teaching courses thrown in. But that's the problem. A person actually qualified to teach high school math well will be taking a $100K/year data science job rather than a $60K/year teaching job. That's why high school STEM teachers aren't as qualified as they could be. If they were, they'd take the higher paying, more advanced job. However, if math teachers salaries were increased to that of data scientists, programmers, engineers, etc, then high schools could have a chance at getting more qualified teachers that understand the subject on a deeper level, since the would-be data scientists/software enginner math majors would actually consider teaching as a profession.

It's important to note that a person working in a particular tech field
does a different job from a person teaching that same technology.
And the skills, while overlapping, are different. Just paying more
wouldn't necessarily get better teachers to the extent of the cost
increase.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where I went to school, one had to have a BA/BS in the field one wishes to teach. No education courses...UNLESS one is planning to teach at the elementary level. In which case one could get a degree in education. Then, at a post grad level, one has to take two years of educational courses, with some courses aimed at your core degree. It is, in fact, equal to an MA anywhere else. Those who wish to teach on the elementary level must also take two more years, with courses aimed at teaching at that level. They, of course, have to teach everything, not simply one topic.

After the credential is obtained (and that involves many tests along with student teaching, so it takes another year) teachers here are required to take continuing education. Most teachers end up with Master's degrees in their core fields, and not a few end up with doctorates (usually the doctorates are in education). That was where I was headed before I had to retire...though my doctorate was aimed at English lit and linguistics, not education.

I can tell you this; your level of education wouldn't get you a teaching credential in California without a lot more education and some very involved testing. As well, there is no such thing as a 'STEM' level BA/BS here. A BS in math is a BS in math. Period. The education classes come at the post grad level.

....so California teachers are, academically, probably THE best qualified teachers there are...yet the educational system is one of the worst. You are right; it's not the teacher's fault, but don't go telling ME that it's because the educational (university level) system doesn't train them. the problem is that they train the teachers...but do not allow those teachers to do what they are trained for.

I do not think that is the case any longer. At least not in Washington state. I talked to a man that was trying to become a high school physics teacher. He was taking physics in college, but at nowhere near a physics major level. I know because I asked him how he was doing on calculus. I was shocked when he said it was not a prerequisite for his major. That means he could not really understand the physics that he was teaching. By the end of my first year at university I knew and understood more physics than he would in his four years working for his degree.

 

[epronovost]

I do not think that is the case any longer. At least not in Washington state. I talked to a man that was trying to become a high school physics teacher. He was taking physics in college, but at nowhere near a physics major level. I know because I asked him how he was doing on calculus. I was shocked when he said it was not a prerequisite for his major. That means he could not really understand the physics that he was teaching. By the end of my first year at university I knew and understood more physics than he would in his four years working for his degree.

In Quebec, teachers used to have basically an equivalent of a bachelor degree in their class plus an extra year of specialisation in education. This system was replaced with a 4 year teaching degree with a mix of education classes and classes based on specialisation. In the end the result varied a lot. For math, science and literature, you ended up with less training in your specialisation than if you had made a bachelor in it because you had more class in education. For philosophy and history it ended up as a little bit less, but not by much and finally for arts and music it made no difference. The good thing though is that continuous formation both in education and in your specialisation is mandatory so you have to go to conferances and training sessions to perfect yourself and avoid rusting. In my opinion though, high school degrees should require a Master degree.

 

[dianaiad]

Mendel would, had he been alive when more knowledge of the cosmos was available, not have accepted a young earth. As a man of science -- while being a man of religion as well -- he would have adjusted. Truly intelligent people do this.

Indeed? You DO realize that Mendel didn't die until 1884? You are making a great many assumptions here with absolutely no evidence to support it, except your 'no true scott' fallacy.

And that is the point I've been trying to make.

The point you've been trying to make is that no truly intellectual person would be a young earth creationist?

 

[dianaiad]

The problem with your argument is that the same can be made with literacy and arythmetics and brilliant minds. Education doesn't make brilliant people. It fosters brilliant people. Back in the 18th century knowing about what we call today basic science wasn't all that important, but today it is. Having a poor science education is terrible. How can you train geneticist or doctors in large numbers if you struggle to make people understand basic concept like evolution?

Evolution (something I agree with, btw) doesn't generally have an important part of a child's life until s/he can read about it.

 

[epronovost]

Evolution (something I agree with, btw) doesn't generally have an important part of a child's life until s/he can read about it.

I'm not sure that needs to mentionned, but you don't need an especially high level of literacy to start to read and understand a basic theory like this one. Since it's very basic science, it should be taught to fairly young kids (I would say 10-11 years personnaly) so that when they finish their mandatory schooling they have a reasonnable grasp of more complex biological science. Students today need to be good at science to be able to make good informed decisions as citizens. The Origin of Species or the Descent of Man are a lot easier to read than Shakespeare's plays or the KJV. They are the kind of texts that could be studied by much younger students.

 

[Shaul]

Could you give me a few names of these "most erudite and knowledgeable people in the world" who have been YECs, please?

Would someone with a PhD in Nuclear Physics and Earth and Planetary science that is a member of the U.S. the Atomic Energy Commission be good enough?
Proof of God in Five Minutes | Gerald Schroeder

 

[dianaiad]

I'm not sure that needs to mentionned, but you don't need an especially high level of literacy to start to read and understand a basic theory like this one.

What 'level' of literacy would you consider high enough? And why is this topic the be all and end all of education for

Since it's very basic science, it should be taught to fairly young kids (I would say 10-11 years personnaly)

So...a fifth grade education and ability to read?

Did you notice my post, where I mentioned that I was teaching high school freshmen who had a THIRD GRADE LEVEL? They couldn't care less about YEC or evolution. They were either in gangs and worried about what color of scarf would get them killed, or manga books that didn't have much, if any, lettering. You aren't GETTING it. Your religious bias has everything about evolution, and Evolution is, quite frankly, not the issue. It never was. One can argue with literate children about whether the earth was created six thousand years ago, or four billion years ago, if they are interested.

But FIRST they need to get A; interested in it (most couldn't care less) and B: able to READ about it.

so that when they finish their mandatory schooling they have a reasonnable grasp of more complex biological science. Students today need to be good at science to be able to make good informed decisions as citizens. The Origin of Species or the Descent of Man are a lot easier to read than Shakespeare's plays or the KJV. They are the kind of texts that could be studied by much younger students.

Uh huh.

You are recommending the "Origin of Species' as reading material to kids who have problems with, and struggle through, this?

Bella and James sat on the grass.
“Let’s play the rhyme game,” Bella said.
“First, you say a word.
Then, I’ll say a word that rhymes.”
James nodded. “Truck,” he said.
“Duck,” Bella rhymed. “House,” James said.
“Mouse,” Bella rhymed. “Dog,” James said.
“Frog,” Bella rhymed.
“Can I do the rhyming now?” James asked.
“Yes,” Bella said.
“Dress,” James rhymed.
Bella laughed. “Wait. Yes wasn’t my word. Here it is now.”
“Cow,”
James rhymed. “No,”
Bella said, laughing harder. “No, no, no.” “Go.” James rhymed.
“Go, go, go.” Bella laughed so hard she rolled on the grass.
James rolled next to her.
Rhyming was fun!

(taken from a PDF reading exercise for reading comprehension...second grade)


And you expect kids who have problems with the above to be able to blithely read THIS (from the introduction to 'On the Origin of Species," by Charles Darwin)

When on board H.M.S. 'Beagle,' as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species—that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it. After five years' work I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions, which then seemed to me probable: from that period to the present day I have steadily pursued the same object. I hope that I may be excused for entering on these personal details, as I give them to show that I have not been hasty in coming to a decision.

Got news for you. The kids I taught were MUCH happier dealing with Beowulf. with side by side translations. It was hard work, but they were looking for the jokes, and were incredibly proud of themselves when they found them...and GOT them. The above text would have been incredibly yawn worthy, and believe me, they didn't give a hoot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed? You DO realize that Mendel didn't die until 1884? You are making a great many assumptions here with absolutely no evidence to support it, except your 'no true scott' fallacy.



The point you've been trying to make is that no truly intellectual person would be a young earth creationist?

Not really. It is only those that hate reality that tend to become creationists. One can see this by their refusal to even to try to understand evolution. Or, since the theory is so strongly supported by scientific evidence and there is none to be found for creationism, creationists also refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence.

But since Mendel's work ended up supporting evolution he was not the best source to site in the first place. Newton himself did not understand his work well enough to understand how planetary orbits were stable. He thought some outside hand might be needed. A lot of scientists had wrong ideas in their times that involved relying on God. But the more we learn the less necessary God becomes. Creationists have mired themselves in the 19th century. That is one reason that they are so easy to refute in debates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What 'level' of literacy would you consider high enough? And why is this topic the be all and end all of education for



So...a fifth grade education and ability to read?

Did you notice my post, where I mentioned that I was teaching high school freshmen who had a THIRD GRADE LEVEL? They couldn't care less about YEC or evolution. They were either in gangs and worried about what color of scarf would get them killed, or manga books that didn't have much, if any, lettering. You aren't GETTING it. Your religious bias has everything about evolution, and Evolution is, quite frankly, not the issue. It never was. One can argue with literate children about whether the earth was created six thousand years ago, or four billion years ago, if they are interested.

But FIRST they need to get A; interested in it (most couldn't care less) and B: able to READ about it.



Uh huh.

You are recommending the "Origin of Species' as reading material to kids who have problems with, and struggle through, this?

Bella and James sat on the grass.
“Let’s play the rhyme game,” Bella said.
“First, you say a word.
Then, I’ll say a word that rhymes.”
James nodded. “Truck,” he said.
“Duck,” Bella rhymed. “House,” James said.
“Mouse,” Bella rhymed. “Dog,” James said.
“Frog,” Bella rhymed.
“Can I do the rhyming now?” James asked.
“Yes,” Bella said.
“Dress,” James rhymed.
Bella laughed. “Wait. Yes wasn’t my word. Here it is now.”
“Cow,”
James rhymed. “No,”
Bella said, laughing harder. “No, no, no.” “Go.” James rhymed.
“Go, go, go.” Bella laughed so hard she rolled on the grass.
James rolled next to her.
Rhyming was fun!

(taken from a PDF reading exercise for reading comprehension...second grade)


And you expect kids who have problems with the above to be able to blithely read THIS (from the introduction to 'On the Origin of Species," by Charles Darwin)

When on board H.M.S. 'Beagle,' as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species—that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home, it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it. After five years' work I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions, which then seemed to me probable: from that period to the present day I have steadily pursued the same object. I hope that I may be excused for entering on these personal details, as I give them to show that I have not been hasty in coming to a decision.

Got news for you. The kids I taught were MUCH happier dealing with Beowulf. with side by side translations. It was hard work, but they were looking for the jokes, and were incredibly proud of themselves when they found them...and GOT them. The above text would have been incredibly yawn worthy, and believe me, they didn't give a hoot.

Why would anyone recommend that? Creationists too often project their worship of a deity onto others. Darwin is not worshiped. He is not a God of evolution. We know that he got some things wrong. Can a creationist tell me what their God got wrong? And we do not use Newton's Principia in either math nor science classes. Why on Earth would we use Darwin's work. Don't treat evolution as a religious belief, but as scientific knowledge and you might get somewhere.

 

[epronovost]

And why is this topic the be all and end all of education

It's one of the foundation of biology and one of the most important theory in all of science. It's important to understand it and know it. That would be like having an history class that doesn't talk about the Roman Empire. You can't have a good education without it

So...a fifth grade education and ability to read?

It's not a very complicated theory that requires extansive prior knowledge to grasp. A 5th grade student should be able to read vulgarised text explaning it and understand it (for the full original or official translation text, I would wait until the age of 14-15). Plus, there is a wealth of nature program produced by Nat Geo, Disney, the BBC. etc. To provide extra material to illustrate it. Kids love animals in my experience and they love the idea of genetics and DNA. Science fiction is full of fabulation on what could be done with it.

Did you notice my post, where I mentioned that I was teaching high school freshmen who had a THIRD GRADE LEVEL?

I read that. I'm a bit incredulous that an entire classes could be described as having a third grade level in English. A single spectacularly bad student I could believe, but the average of an entire class, I don't think so. That is of course assuming you were teaching a "regular class" not a class designed for students with important learning disabilities and handicaps. In my experience, my weakest students of comparable age, would have a literacy level maybe three years lower than that we should expect not 7 or 8 and mind you I also teach in one of the worst school of my Province. My students are supposed to be bad, but they weren't THAT bad. You are describing a level of bad that's hard to believe. We are talking about a 16 to 18 years old who has the reading and writting skills of a child half is age. If they are that terrible, if you manage to make them read at a six grade level I would consider you a freakin' hero, but in the grand scheme of things they would still be horrible failure of the system and probably incapable of operating as reasonnably good citizen with a high level of responsability. But, even if they were reading and writting at a college level, they would still be failures of the system if they didn't knew basic science, history, geography, philosophy, mathematics, etc.

But FIRST they need to get A; interested in it (most couldn't care less) and B: able to READ about it.

If we waited for kids and teenagers interests in something before teaching it, I don't think anybody would ever learn how to use a semicolon, trigonometry or the intricacies of dynastic transmission of power in the monarchies of the 16th century Europe. Interest has to be fostered and triggered and sometime stuff just has to be taught even if they couldn't care less about it. Basic science is one of those things that's absolutely essential.

 

[dianaiad]

It's one of the foundation of biology and one of the most important theory in all of science. It's important to understand it and know it. That would be like having an history class that doesn't talk about the Roman Empire. You can't have a good education without it



It's not a very complicated theory that requires extansive prior knowledge to grasp. A 5th grade student should be able to read vulgarised text explaning it and understand it (for the full original or official translation text, I would wait until the age of 14-15). Plus, there is a wealth of nature program produced by Nat Geo, Disney, the BBC. etc. To provide extra material to illustrate it. Kids love animals in my experience and they love the idea of genetics and DNA. Science fiction is full of fabulation on what could be done with it.



I read that. I'm a bit incredulous that an entire classes could be described as having a third grade level in English. A single spectacularly bad student I cold believe, but the average of an entire class, I don't think so. That is of course assuming you were teaching a "regular class" not a class designed for students with important learning disabilities and handicaps. In my experience, my weakest students of comparable age, would have a literacy level maybe three years lower than that we should expect not 7 or 8 and mind you I also teach in one of the worst school of my Province. My students are supposed to be bad, but they weren't THAT bad. You are describing a level of bad that's hard to believe. We are talking about a 16 to 18 years old who has the reading and writting skills of a child half is age. If they are that terrible, if you manage to make them read at a six grade level I would consider you a freakin' hero, but in the grand scheme of things they would still be horrible failure of the system and probably incapable of operating as reasonnably good citizen with a high level of responsability. But, even if they were reading and writting at a college level, they would still be failures of the system if they didn't knew basic science, history, geography, philosophy, mathematics, etc.



If we waited for kids and teenagers interests in something before teaching it, I don't think anybody would ever learn how to use a semicolon, trigonometry or the intricacies of dynastic transmission of power in the monarchies of the 16th century Europe. Interest has to be fostered and triggered and sometime stuff just has to be taught even if they couldn't care less about it. Basic science is one of those things that's absolutely essential.

The use of the semicolon is essential. Trigonometry and the dynastic transmission of power in the monarchies of 16th century Europe? Not so much. I have lived for seventy years without worrying about, or using, either...and as the holder of several university degrees, I don't think even you could call me 'stupid.'

You are a one trick pony. You seem to think that if kids don't get taught about evolution, and forced to believe in your view of it, there is no use to teach them anything else. It's as if it doesn't matter what else they think about or do, they MUST agree with you on this issue, and once they do, their education is complete.

Now me? Hey. I believe that it is important that kids get a good foundation in science, as well; biology, geology, chemistry..all of it. But before we can teach them ANYTHING, they must first be able to access something. They need to read. They need to write. They need to communicate.

And right now?

They can't.

And yes, I was teaching a special ed class. A very large one, where the 'special ed' was simply that those kids hadn't been taught to read. There was nothing wrong with them; they weren't mentally or physically disabled. They just never had been taught to read, and they were 'kicked upstairs" with every grade rather than forced to stay put until they qualified for the next step. For them, school was a complete waste of time; a place to form gang relationships and figure out who was the leader.

There were more of those kids than there should have been; five or six classrooms full, each with a teacher who taught around 150 kids per day. YOU do the math.

So you go ahead and figure that the be all and end all of modern education is whether kids agree with you that the earth is 4 billion years old, and that mankind did NOT share the planet with dinosaurs. Go right ahead, but boy, are you missing the point.

 

[epronovost]

The use of the semicolon is essential. Trigonometry and the dynastic transmission of power in the monarchies of 16th century Europe? Not so much. I have lived for seventy years without worrying about, or using, either...and as the holder of several university degrees, I don't think even you could call me 'stupid.'

So far, I don't think anybody has had to use it on the thread, but I didn't make a thorough search. Let's face it, the semicolon isn't exactly the most used punctuation sign; it's a more complex device that can be replaced with ease.

You are a one trick pony. You seem to think that if kids don't get taught about evolution, and forced to believe in your view of it, there is no use to teach them anything else.

What? Either I don't make myself clear or you are seriously lacking in reading comprehension because I never said such a thing, not even close. I mentionned that people to be called educated enough to be good citizen need to know basic science (which includes the evolution theory amonst other things, but not exclusively) in supplement to basic history, literacy, mathematics and a host of other subjects.

PS: I hope you will notice my grammar joke.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are a one trick pony. You seem to think that if kids don't get taught about evolution, and forced to believe in your view of it, there is no use to teach them anything else.

Failing to teach them evolution basically is failing just as severally as failing to teach them algebra would. It's a fundamental essential cornerstone of biology. It's the replication of life itself (DNA), and biology is literally the study of life from that chemical perspective.