The US has come this far. One of the leaders in technology.(if not the leader)
How do we know that people polled in say 1911, 1940 or 1962 would have fared any better on this quiz?
And if we can find proof of that, which I doubt, then we have to ask ourselves why?
Why are groups of randomly selected people appearing less intelligent?
The problem is not the education system. Nothing has changed with our education system since 1900 or so. A long time!
It’s the same old schooling system, with quality teachers and equipment and facilities that it has always been.
That system has produced Moon Landings, Hospitals, Universities, the CDC, the Hoover Dam etc etc…
If people are appearing to be less educated it is because the need for educated people is less. It’s that simple.
Necessity is the Mother of Education.
Again, I don’t see any real effects of an apparent lack of educated people. Other than these “test” results.(superimpose that over statistical test results we see from our education system)
I do see the effects of a system that doesn’t call for educated people. The Call for educated people.
The US has come this far. One of the leaders in technology.(if not the leader) How do we know that people polled in say 1911, 1940 or 1962 would have fared any better on this quiz? And if we can find proof of that, which I doubt, then we have to ask ourselves why? Why are groups of randomly selected people appearing less intelligent? The problem is not the education system. Nothing has changed with our education system since 1900 or so. A long time! It's the same old schooling system, with quality teachers and equipment and facilities that it has always been. That system has produced Moon Landings, Hospitals, Universities, the CDC, the Hoover Dam etc etc... If people are appearing to be less educated it is because the need for educated people is less. It's that simple. Necessity is the Mother of Education. Again, I don't see any real effects of an apparent lack of educated people. Other than these "test" results.(superimpose that over statistical test results we see from our education system) I do see the effects of a system that doesn't call for educated people. The Call for educated people.We don’t! Figurers can lie, and liars can figure! As a skeptic I am a seeker of facts. After seeing three aliens I thought someone here could tell me what the hell they are and why are they here messing with people. All I have gotten in reply has been of no help so I will beg my leave and continue to look for answers elsewhere. Good luck to you all… Necessity is the Mother of Invention!
We don’t! Figurers can lie, and liars can figure! As a skeptic I am a seeker of facts. After seeing three aliens I thought someone here could tell me what the hell they are and why are they here messing with people. All I have gotten in reply has been of no help so I will beg my leave and continue to look for answers elsewhere. Good luck to you all… Necessity is the Mother of Invention!Walt, aside from the fact that you are claiming to have seen aliens.... I don't know what you read in my post to set you off in this manner....
The problem is not the education system. Nothing has changed with our education system since 1900 or so. A long time!Why are science classes kn the sequence biology, chemistry and physics? When was that decided? http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2008/10/should-we-teach-physics-not-biology-first/ Why is 4 years of English literature required but only 2 years of math? This ain't 1893 anymore. Physicsists had not figured out the structure of the atom. They did not know about electron orbitals. Biology depends on chemistry and chemistry depends on physics. Maybe people are so ignorant because school is really so confusing. Science fiction actually organizes information better. Omnilingual (1957) by H. Beam Piper http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/03/scientific-language-h-beam-pipers-qomnilingualq http://www.feedbooks.com/book/308/omnilingual http://librivox.org/omnilingual-by-h-beam-piper/ psik
The problem is not the education system. Nothing has changed with our education system since 1900 or so. A long time!Why are science classes kn the sequence biology, chemistry and physics? When was that decided? http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2008/10/should-we-teach-physics-not-biology-first/ Why is 4 years of English literature required but only 2 years of math? This ain't 1893 anymore. Physicsists had not figured out the structure of the atom. They did not know about electron orbitals. Biology depends on chemistry and chemistry depends on physics. Maybe people are so ignorant because school is really so confusing. Science fiction actually organizes information better. Omnilingual (1957) by H. Beam Piper http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/03/scientific-language-h-beam-pipers-qomnilingualq http://www.feedbooks.com/book/308/omnilingual http://librivox.org/omnilingual-by-h-beam-piper psik I hear your critique of the educational system. Some of those arguments may seem relevant on the face of it. You're missing the point though. Say some of your improvements were instituted-any "improvements". To what end? The educational system we have had in place has been more than adequate. Emphasis on "more". If you have a vision for "better education", than certainly you have ideas of what results could be achieved through these improvements. I'd like for you to iterate some of these "results". You won't be able to. Do you think we would have better rockets? Better Brain Surgery? No we wouldn't. There has always been the best and the most adequate amount of education for the needs of (a)civilization for a given time. To think it could have been better is ludicrous. Don't mistake the impetus for education as a lack of educational value. The key is an impetus for education. Funny enough, ironic enough, that impetus has also been a keystone of education. In all halls of learning it is taught that knowledge and education is the key to advancement. The key to a better world. But people have different ideas on what "better" means. People have different ideas on what "advancement" means. The impetus of education, or the lack of an impetus for education isn't prejudiced. We will always observe the most efficient education as dictated by the Call for Education. So again, it isn't the quality of the education, it is the need for education. The call for education. A general example would be: A given society could call up thousands of doctors or rocket scientists if needed. The people(students) would naturally fill those spots. This happens on a deeper level. It is automatic. You need to take a look at what we are calling for in today's world. And I mean what we are calling for. Not what some specific social subset that you happen to be engaged with is calling for. What We are calling for!
Huh the quiz seems to have been taken down.
Still, if we’re starting up an education rant, one thing that just occurred to me is that our primary education system, in particular, has emotional growth amongst peers tied very closely to intellectual growth. People do grow emotionally at similar rates (at least, I think they do) but rates of intellectual growth can vary widely. Even if these two growth cycles were statistically closer, they’ll be different for every child. One thing that would make U.S. primary education better would be to separate the two.
Huh the quiz seems to have been taken down. Still, if we're starting up an education rant, one thing that just occurred to me is that our primary education system, in particular, has emotional growth amongst peers tied very closely to intellectual growth. People do grow emotionally at similar rates (at least, I think they do) but rates of intellectual growth can vary widely. Even if these two growth cycles were statistically closer, they'll be different for every child. One thing that would make U.S. primary education better would be to separate the two.After we identify exactly what growing emotionally means, I'll still wager that that growth varies widely among people. It varies in growth, type, intensity etc. So I guess I disagree with you T-Bone. But of course please describe further what you mean by emotional growth. Also what exactly do you mean by separate the two.
Also, one can come up with reforms to the educational system. Such as budgetary, or administrative, etc etc. Change the curricula around.
Do away with 12th grade, add Grades 13 and 14 etc…
My points on this education thing are reaction to the OP piece of this thread.
I don’t think you would ever be able to get substantially better results from that Pew Research Quiz on science from randomly selected people.
The results observed from that Pew Quiz in this OP Thread are not a result of faulty educational systems.
Huh the quiz seems to have been taken down. Still, if we're starting up an education rant, one thing that just occurred to me is that our primary education system, in particular, has emotional growth amongst peers tied very closely to intellectual growth. People do grow emotionally at similar rates (at least, I think they do) but rates of intellectual growth can vary widely. Even if these two growth cycles were statistically closer, they'll be different for every child. One thing that would make U.S. primary education better would be to separate the two.After we identify exactly what growing emotionally means, I'll still wager that that growth varies widely among people. It varies in growth, type, intensity etc. So I guess I disagree with you T-Bone. But of course please describe further what you mean by emotional growth. Also what exactly do you mean by separate the two. Yes, perhaps emotional growth varies more than I presume. By separating emotional growth from intellectual growth, I mean that schools shouldn't have institutionalized class progressions which treat a child's emotional and social growth as happening at the same rate as their intellectual growth. Get rid of grade-level dependent skills courses and just let the kids progress through subject masteries as they are able to, while still giving them ample time to interact with their peers.
Yes, perhaps emotional growth varies more than I presume. By separating emotional growth from intellectual growth, I mean that schools shouldn't have institutionalized class progressions which treat a child's emotional and social growth as happening at the same rate as their intellectual growth. Get rid of grade-level dependent skills courses and just let the kids progress through subject masteries as they are able to, while still giving them ample time to interact with their peers.Ok so "emotional growth" I'm assuming, is like maturity levels and different social behavioral traits. Almost all of it is sexual. Puberty, sexual awareness, new hormones, new priorities etc etc.. That's in what? 5th, 6th grade? And it goes all the way after that. In any case, this is not central to my main points. Like I said above, perhaps there are improvements that can be made to schools, however none that will systemically change the "street" results of that Pew Quiz.