|
shots shots shots posted:Even without privatization, decoupling schools from the place where you live would be a good way to get better performance out of schools. Providing transportation and the resources to go to a school outside of your neighborhood would be great. So idealistic, so optimistic. In reality it will be nothing like that at all however.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 02:44 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 15:19 |
|
|
Parts of this post range because the basic topic of education and whether grades are the best indicator of university performance. I took this route because its very hard to talk about reforming education in isolation. If we don't have a demand for educated workers then it won't matter how many of them we can produce (well, not withstanding the intangible benefits of a more educated population, which are substantial). shots shots shots posted:I agree with this, but notice how it fits in exactly with my point: it really doesn't help anyone who has already had the damage done. It's just a plan to help reduce damage in the future No, it isn't, because a major part of the immediate investment in education that I'm talking about would be transition year programs and remedial schooling to help raise the social capital of low GPA and/or drop out students. Its funny I'm posting in this thread, because I actually just left the birthday party of a kid who is close to my family. He just turned two and his Dad is twenty year old high school drop out. When I met Mr. Baby Dady two years ago literally every sentence he spoke was an instant reminder of his class background. His dress, his presentation, even the way he linked his thoughts together in speech all betrayed the very specific social circumstances surronding his upbringing. Even if you'd gotten rid of his acne and buzz cut and dressed him better, the first sentences out of his mouth would have spoken volumes. Two years later and he's just finished a high school transition program. I haven't talked to this guy in a long time, and all I can say is that I was utterly shocked. He's transformed. He holds himself differently, he speaks differently, he's become someone who is used to being listened to, who can confidently communicate ideas back and forth, who believes in his own capability to have insights about the world. I can't emphasize how remarkable this transition was. He says he wants to be a high school teacher and I think he'd make a great one. Now deep down he was always a fairly bright guy (very good at freestyle rapping, I've been told). He's also dirt poor and has an unplanned child so that probably helped give him a certain degree of focus and drive that he might not have otherwise had. Nevertheless this transition year program changed his life in ways that I think are hard to estimate, and perhaps more importantly to me, it has probably vastly changed the life trajectory of his son, who I happen to love very much. I've pointed out how limited your sample size was, I've posted data from other studies showing that IQ can wildly fluctuate during young adulthood, I've posted the abstract of a study that claims that overall highschool performance wasn't a good indicator of first year performance. I've also shared some direct personal experiences. You're wrong. Speaking as someone who did quite poorly in High School prior to my final year I think you're nuts if you actually think there's anything socially desirable or "efficient" about writing these people off. Nevermind the morality of the question, its just plain stupid policy. It would be madness to simply focus on improving primary schools while writing off anyone in the current generation who hasn't performed well already. There has to be substantial investments in finding ways to reach out and help these people. And not just because I've got a bleeding heart and I cry myself to sleep each night for the downtrodden and wretched of the earth. Even from a purely pragmatic perspective the idea's your pushing are just plain bad policy. quote:Yes, America is facing a drastic shortage of human capital, creating a whole host of opportunities if you have a college degree! We can only look at the shining example set by western Europe with its exceptionally low youth unemployment rate that was brought about by investments in education. Yes, how lucky it is that people will advanced degrees can now learn what its like to desperately scramble and struggle with each other for the last good jobs. Those worker's are so fortunate to be in an economy where they can instantly be replaced by the numerous other well educated workers who are desperate for their lovely job. Anyway your European example is really lazy and inadequate. First of all because the situation is very different, second of all because the European situation is more complicated than you're suggesting, and finally because even if the trade off that you were suggesting did exist, it would still be a substantial improvement over the status quo in America today. quote:Seriously though, the real work needs to be put into fixing education way before college. Not everyone needs to go to college, but everyone should get a good starter education from the state, and that's where we are really failing. I agree with both these statements but I think you're dead wrong about the idea that your performance in high school is the only proper indicator for getting into college. Its possible to look at a much wider range of factors. Its also possible that we need to *gasp* let more people into college than we currently do. Government bonds are selling well and the economy is stagnant. Demand is depressed and investors are so desperate for a safe haven for their money that they'll accept real negative interest rates on certain types of government debt just for the security it brings. Even working within the logic of capitalism itself this is the obvious time to be making huge investments. If the schools are overcrowded then build more of them. If there aren't enough instructors then hire more of them. If these colleges are out of the way then build roads and bus routes and street-cars etc. to connect them with existing communities. There's no reason to be tepid in our reforms here. The system needs a huge overhaul, and the economy in general needs a boost. Start investing in transit and clean energy technology, bring in a bit of protectionism to take the edge off the global market, and now in addition to all those great new schools you'd also have jobs for those people to work. And all the money getting spread around will in turn stimulate demand for local produce and venues, encouraging a virtuous circle of economic development. Education is a key part of this, but it would also be pointless to merely tweak the education system without thinking about the economy that the education system feeds into. quote:Who cares? Name an alternative that will work for finding the best and most prepared students for college in large samples. So your argument has gone in two posts from "The system is fair and efficient." to "The system is unfair and efficient? who cares?" I guess my alternative system would be: "don't assume high school grades are everything because other factors also matter and should potentially be taken into account" with a dose of "if college is now necessary for a decent job then we need to stop wringing our hands over finding out who the "best" students are and instead focus on ways to get more people into college." But honestly, at this point you seem to be trying to focus the locus of the argument. I'm not claiming to have the perfect system for determining how we allocate education in society, I'd have to be a megalomaniac to think I could come up with such a system on the fly. What I am willing to argue is that the numerous positive assertions you've made in this thread are incorrect, misleading, or missing the forest for the trees. quote:Your suggestions just help to make what I suggest a more fair measure, they don't form a selection mechanism in themselves. I'm not saying grades have no role in determining people's academic futures, what I'm disputing is the idea that grades are a reliable indicator of innate human talent and that the grades you get in high school shouldn't necessarily close the doors of higher learning forever. In particular its your "good money after bad" comment that I guess bothers me the most. It really just betrays a massive level of ignorance, at least in my opinion, as well as a rather ugly and close minded view of people. I think you're really just underestimating the capability of people to transform themselves, and as a result you're writing off policy solutions that would actually have really beneficial effects on a lot of communities (i.e. programs that target people who have dropped out or have low grades).
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 03:52 |
|
|
shots shots shots posted:Yes it is, because the alternatives suck and aren't really applicable on a large scale. Test scores and GPA are pretty much the only quantitative tools available for doing admissions. You can't evaluate anyone who is a STEM major by these criteria. It's an entirely different animal than something that where merit merely reflects a few numbers on a sheet of paper. It gets worse when you take that into account while being in high school. You're hosed unless you don't have a good set of AP classes to cover what STEM departments expect you to already know by the time you hit college.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 09:24 |
|
|
A big dent could be taken out of the student loan issue if the government stopped giving out loans for people going to for-profit colleges. It will of course never happen, but it would be nice. University of Pheonix, Devry, Milan, etc. are all just massive government loan scams anyways.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 09:53 |
|
|
Avalanche posted:A big dent could be taken out of the student loan issue if the government stopped giving out loans for people going to for-profit colleges. It will of course never happen, but it would be nice. University of Pheonix, Devry, Milan, etc. are all just massive government loan scams anyways. Considering that a lot of non-profit colleges behave essentially for-profit, the government should just guaranteeing giving out loans.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 10:45 |
|
|
shots shots shots posted:Even without privatization, decoupling schools from the place where you live would be a good way to get better performance out of schools. Providing transportation and the resources to go to a school outside of your neighborhood would be great. In China as the school year ends and the utterly massive admissions tests roll around I've been talking to people about how American schools decide where you go to middle and high school. All I can say is "uh, you go to the school where you live" and it sounds pretty dumb in retrospect. Pro-PRC Laowai posted:So idealistic, so optimistic. In reality it will be nothing like that at all however. How bad is it in China then, where we both are and the schools operate more like this? I know the tests are a nightmare for the students and a straightjacket for the curriculum, but it's not like the U.S. doesn't have standardized tests with high stakes. But why shouldn't students be allowed (required) to move around more like Chinese schools? Honestly I'm expecting some sort of terrible truth as an answer because, hey, it's China, but I haven't been exposed to it yet.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 11:01 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:But why shouldn't students be allowed (required) to move around more like Chinese schools? Classism. Schools in poor areas get less funding because the local tax base is smaller, while schools in wealthy neighborhoods get better funding. So the children of wealthy people get a better education (granted, they can also afford private schools, but that's a different issue entirely) while people in poor areas (for example, inner cities and very rural areas) get much worse education. The only way to get any kind of actual choice in the matter is to be the child of parents wealthy enough to go to a private school. If you parents aren't rich, you get stuffed into a public school which may or may not be any good, like it or not.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 11:07 |
|
|
I ran into two very interesting studies about financial lobbying, made by the IMF of all people. I was going to make a thread about financial regulation and use them in there, but now I don't have the time and I am just going to throw them out here for now. THREE’S COMPANY: Wall Street, Capitol Hill, and K Street: http://isb.edu/faculty/upload/Doc122011151.pdf Where they show a strong correlation between politicians changing their minds about financial regulation and campaign donations by affected companies quote:These results give support to the notion that political influence of the financial A Fistful of Dollars: Lobbying and the Financial Crisis: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/wp09287.pdf ....and this lobbying makes the financial companies a lot more prone to taking risks. quote:To summarize, lobbying is associated ex ante with more risk-taking as measured by higher and a summary of the first article http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft...06/pdf/igan.pdf I have with great joy been citing IMF when discussing financial lobbyism, it works a lot better than citing Taibbi. Adam Oehlenschlager fucked around with this message at May 28, 2012 around 11:33 |
| # ? May 28, 2012 11:27 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Classism. Schools in poor areas get less funding because the local tax base is smaller, while schools in wealthy neighborhoods get better funding. So the children of wealthy people get a better education (granted, they can also afford private schools, but that's a different issue entirely) while people in poor areas (for example, inner cities and very rural areas) get much worse education. Yea, and that's pretty much where gaokao comes into play with points being added for being from the poo poo areas and schools. Of course, it's a soul destroying hell, but on the other hand I know tons of people who managed to entirely change their family's fortunes thanks to the drat thing. Have also heard others say it's "the only fair thing in life". Given the insane competition and stress, yea... studying is basically everything.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 12:38 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Classism. Schools in poor areas get less funding because the local tax base is smaller, while schools in wealthy neighborhoods get better funding. So the children of wealthy people get a better education (granted, they can also afford private schools, but that's a different issue entirely) while people in poor areas (for example, inner cities and very rural areas) get much worse education. It's rarely true that poor areas get less funding per student, At least when talking about the inner city. Practically any inner city district spends drastically more per student than a nearby suburban district. The reason private schools do so well is at least partly that they can cherrypick good students and offload the lovely students to the public school system which has a legal obligation.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 14:07 |
|
|
shots shots shots posted:It's rarely true that poor areas get less funding per student, At least when talking about the inner city. Saying they spend more is a very shallow view of the subject, though: GAO posted:http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03234.pdf So, really only half of inner city schools spend more than suburban schools, but that doesn't cover the entire picture anyways. I don't see how you can extrapolate that into saying remedial programs to help young (or older) adults who had suffered from a sub par education during their childhood are pointless if the "damage is already done." Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the 'damage' cannot be reversed? I doubt anyone would expect a high school drop out to become a PhD candidate and an astronaut the next year, but I don't see any objective reason why they couldn't integrate well into a community college, and perhaps transfer to a 4 year afterwards if they feel it is a good fit. Not everyone needs a 4 year degree, but an educated populace is better for everyone involved. edit: And I don't see why those sorts of programs shouldn't be done in conjunction with a reform of the primary and secondary education system, and really even before that in regards to nutrition. Karl Sharks fucked around with this message at May 28, 2012 around 14:24 |
| # ? May 28, 2012 14:21 |
|
|
shots shots shots posted:It's rarely true that poor areas get less funding per student, At least when talking about the inner city. Even then, private school or not, gaokao still comes into play. Undergrad Chinese students abroad either hosed up on the gaokao and were saved by having family with money, or led sheltered lives. Going overseas for undergrad pretty much kills your shot at ever getting into government positions here. Ditto goes for the military and most SOEs worthwhile. Masters, PhD... yea, still got a shot at SOE positions, but it's not highly realistic. Military is also another one of those methods to move on up for normal people if you suck at school. Know a few people who ended up becoming cops as well. Having an ex from years back who was from (very) rural sichuan, she was basically like a star back in the village, inspiration to all the students in the schools she went to, etc. Never would have had a shot without gaokao to be honest. Top schools operate on a quota system which results in much higher competition in the richer areas for the limited spots. Sports scholarships are not really a thing, as there are universities and schools devoted to sports. Gaokao scores also play a role in what majors you are deemed qualified for and schools can have their own entrance exams for the contested majors as well. This process is also one of the few really easy ways to upgrade that hukou and transfer it meaning you end up getting all the social benefits of any other true-resident of the city you end up in. Getting a decent job following school basically makes that hukou transfer permanent.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 14:44 |
|
|
Karl Sharks posted:Saying they spend more is a very shallow view of the subject, though: Who cares, aren't people clamoring for equal funding? I await my suburban school district getting double or triple the funding to match the nearby DC or Baltimore inner-city districts. Suburban schools don't have to apologize for the lower salaries they can pay by guaranteeing a stabbing-free workplace.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 14:58 |
|
|
Claverjoe posted:This worship of scientists as having the answers, where scientists become the new "gods" to save humanity is nothing more than an attempt to absolve yourself of any negative externalities of your actions. I feel strongly that I speak on behalf of the vast majority of scientist when I say go to hell. Christ relax, my apologies for touching a nerve. I don't think there is much wrong with pointing out that man has a pretty decent record at 'sorting it out' when faced with the challenges this world has thrown at him. If expressing a belief that the human race can work things out for the better is such an outlandish idea that I must be secretly trying to justify the ruinous effects of my existence on everyone else then maybe we are hosed after all.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 16:52 |
|
|
McDowell posted:Bring in the private sector! Vouchers all around!
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 17:09 |
|
|
EDIT: No need to belabor my exasperation with Steve Evets' attitude.
Claverjoe fucked around with this message at May 28, 2012 around 17:28 |
| # ? May 28, 2012 17:18 |
|
|
Steve Evets posted:I don't think there is much wrong with pointing out that man has a pretty decent record at 'sorting it out' when faced with the challenges this world has thrown at him. A pretty good record at problem-solving /= the ability to solve every problem that comes our way. It seems inconceivable to most people that climate change is something that human civilization won't overcome, and yet very little is being done to stop it. The sad reality is that we've probably already reached the point where it is completely outside of our control to stop it. Arnold J. Toynbee is a historian who has studied civilization collapse, and he has an interesting insight. He says that civilizations grow because they are very good at solving particular problems, but when their mode of problem-solving becomes entrenched and stagnant, they collapse when faced with new problems that require different modes of thinking. For me, this idea has deep resonance with the problems we now face. Science, technology, "progress," and economic growth are what got us in this ecological mess, and I'm almost certain that they are not what's going to get us out of it, for better or worse. Einstein was right: "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 17:37 |
|
|
BunnyBunny posted:It would be really foolish of people who claim to be for the scientific method to scoff at a system where new ideas can be tried out, adopted widely if they are successful and abandoned if they are not. It's always funny to me when otherwise rational people would prefer we just keep the same broken public school systems out of tradition or some misguided attempt to make sure that all students are equally uneducated. I never said the school system shouldn't be changed, but privatization and vouchers are not the solution. Privately run schools can select their students, making their "better results" pure bullshit. Vouchers only cover part of tuition. So now we have two separate schools, the public and the private. The private ones can offer a free ride to gifted students, and people who can pay tuition get a nice coupon from the state. Students who aren't flagged as smart by standardized testing and/or don't have wealthy parents stay in the public system. The private sector will offer teachers bare-bones salaries and benefits and the public sector will follow suit in order to cut costs. So the result is two separate (and unequal) school systems and teachers making less. It's not hard to imagine the public system turning into menial labor boot camp while the privates become a mix of decent schools and ideological reinforcement centers (why pay for an education that will make your child challenge preexisting beliefs?). Focus should be taken off of "success metrics" and schools should develop (national) curricula more focused on arts, STEM, and hands-on vocational skills.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 17:45 |
|
|
BunnyBunny posted:It would be really foolish of people who claim to be for the scientific method to scoff at a system where new ideas can be tried out, adopted widely if they are successful and abandoned if they are not. It's always funny to me when otherwise rational people would prefer we just keep the same broken public school systems out of tradition or some misguided attempt to make sure that all students are equally uneducated. Education vouchers have been tried, numerous times, and have always produced poor results.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 18:07 |
|
|
McDowell posted:Focus should be taken off of "success metrics" and schools should develop (national) curricula more focused on arts, STEM, and hands-on vocational skills. I'm not going to argue with anything you have said, except to say that I think it is more important to help the students before they get to school rather than after, when it may be too late. Making sure single moms and otherwise poor families can feed themselves and their children well, don't have to work 2-3 jobs (per parent), have access to quality health care, can live in neighborhoods that aren't filled with violence and have access to preschool and other "head start" style programs would probably nearly solve the problems that a lot of poor schools face. Of course, thinking this makes me a filthy socialist and treating the poor like human beings is class warfare.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 18:46 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Classism. I'm confused about what you think you're telling me. I'm an American, I thought I made that clear. I know that. The Chinese system sounds better to me now that I've had to explain the American system to Chinese people. I was assuming Pro-PRC Laowai was going to say something horrible and true about the zhongkao and gaokao (China's school entrance exams) but I guess actually had some good things to say. If you think about it for half a second it does seem obvious that schooling people based on where they live and their property tax is going to be incredibly unfair. Other countries move students around to different quality schools based on their test scores. And as mentioned those test scores can be weighted for poverty and whatnot.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 19:06 |
|
|
 I can't believe people are advocating the Chinese (or any Confucian) education system. They're great at churning out worker bees but I just have to look at Chinese, Korea, and Japan among other countries to see the flaws in the system.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 19:09 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:
Yeah, you're not looking at poo poo, you're imagining stereotypes.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 19:27 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:
I don't know much about this but what flaws are you referring to?
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 21:06 |
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:I don't know much about this but what flaws are you referring to? They include: 1) Rote memorization/learning - foreign lecturers have a hard time adjusting to the fact that students are ghostly silent when asked questions or asked if they have questions 2) University entrance exam - in Japan/Korea, essentially requires students to attend another school (cram school) after normal school to cram in enough poo poo to do well 3) Terrible universities - Tough to get in, but students learn jack-poo poo in college 4) Terrible university->graduate work programs Places like Singapore have taken it even further by streaming students in grade school so that their lives are decided based on how well they did in an exam in grade 6. I speak as someone who grew up in one of these systems and moved to the States for college.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 22:05 |
|
|
But look at what about those countries? They all seem to be getting along just fine. What is it about the outcomes in those places that you think is such obvious evidence of flaws in their system? And your number 3 there is a bit misleading. It's mostly true for soft degrees that filter into standard salaryman sorts of jobs (and is pretty much fine because of more rigorous education they recieve up to that point), but it's not universal across majors. There are some things you just can't bullshit on. And honestly, let's not pretend the US is much different on that anyhow. I don't want to say most, but there are certainly a very large number of people who don't learn anything in college pretty much everywhere, and they end up doing jobs that don't require the things they never botehred to learn anyhow.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 22:24 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:They include: Sure, like I said, it ain't perfect. Undergrad in the US is pretty much worthless anyways though, you don't get anything real till grad-level. There are definite steps being taken to improve the unis. However, to be realistic, how the hell else do you make the poo poo fair enough that the system can effectively pull a shitload of people out of poverty? Kinda hard when ya got over 9 million students every year battling for the top degrees at the top schools and at the same time a society full of guanxi.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 22:36 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:They include: As opposed to in the United States, where,
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 23:09 |
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:As opposed to in the United States, where, Yeah, while the degrees to which those apply are different, I don't see much contrast between the two. Though I have noticed from the 'vent about students' thread in SAL that students from Asian countries do not view plagiarism like we do at all. Is this attributed to the school system or the difference in collectivist vs. individualistic cultures?
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 23:20 |
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:As opposed to in the United States, where, Terrible post but to humor you, compare schools like Todai, Keio, Beidai with HYPS and tell me they're anywhere remotely comparable. Or going to a cram school 6 hours a day after normal school. I didn't realize that was common in the States too 
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 23:25 |
|
|
Radbot posted:US sales of new homes rose 3.3 percent in April Back to houses! From a pure statistical point of view... I am not sure how accurate a graph of new home sales gives for of the overall housing market. All that tells you is that there is still a large volume of foreclosed homes on the market or that credit has not recovered to the point where people renting can purchase a home (whether those people can afford to take on a mortgage is another topic). I suspect the existing home sales compared to that graph would paint still a very bleak picture, however it would be a more accurate bleak picture.
|
| # ? May 28, 2012 23:59 |
|
|
New home sales are more economically relevant because they reflect demand/production for materials and labor, while pre-existing home sales add little to the economy. Of course a graph of all US home sales would be welcome.
|
| # ? May 29, 2012 00:18 |
|
|
McDowell posted:New home sales are more economically relevant because they reflect demand/production for materials and labor, while pre-existing home sales add little to the economy. Yea, but that's just another one of those stats that's continually revised so it doesn't mean all that much.
|
| # ? May 29, 2012 00:55 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:Terrible post but to humor you, compare schools like Todai, Keio, Beidai with HYPS and tell me they're anywhere remotely comparable. A student lacking familial connections wanting to enter the Ivy Leagues in the States doesn't, and doesn't need to do exhaustive test prep to get amazing test scores, in addition to doing well on the standardized tests required for advancement which are taught to for the entirety of their time as students, on top of a massive pile of extracurricular work to be even glanced at for admission. Further, American undergrad lectures outside the best of the ivies are a hive of activity when the professor calls on someone during classes which definitely are not remedial high school material for structural reasons which can be empirically demonstrated. Or you could be ignoring two separate systems failing students in similar ways because you've been hypersensitized to the differences in the one you're less--perhaps even NOT at all!--familiar with because of a vague enculturated orientalism but that would be just nutty.
|
| # ? May 29, 2012 01:17 |
|
|
If you had bothered actually reading my post, I actually lived under one of these systems (and then moved to the States) so it's weird for you, a white American, to make veiled accusations of orientalism.
|
| # ? May 29, 2012 01:59 |
|
|
Yeah orientalism wasn't the right word, I apologize. Your post does this weird thing where you list flaws present in both systems but its apparently way worse in a one because its done better according to its flawed internal metrics, and I couldn't find a better synonym offhand than orientialist because it sure as gently caress wasn't and isn't empirical. Ultimately it was intended not as a defense of a confucianist system and more highlighting parallel failures of that, and the retard-o mutant prussian system in the States.
|
| # ? May 29, 2012 02:10 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:Or going to a cram school 6 hours a day after normal school. I didn't realize that was common in the States too It's fairly common in the US, they just don't call them "cram schools" here. I don't doubt that the percentage of children enrolling in those schools is lower here than in Japan, but that probably has more to do with economic factors than the nature of the educational system. After all, you can pretty much say goodbye to getting into a good school if you bomb on the SAT!
|
| # ? May 29, 2012 02:20 |
|
|
60+% of high schoolers in Japan go to juku for example so you could point to the ubiquity of it as being a major difference.
|
| # ? May 29, 2012 02:30 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's fairly common in the US, they just don't call them "cram schools" here. I don't doubt that the percentage of children enrolling in those schools is lower here than in Japan, but that probably has more to do with economic factors than the nature of the educational system. After all, you can pretty much say goodbye to getting into a good school if you bomb on the SAT! If you gently caress up the SAT really badly, though, you can take it again. Can you do that in China? Doing terribly on the SAT doesn't also wreck your chances of school forever and ever. You can, for example, enroll in a community college or a similar institution, study your face off, get good grades, and go "Yup, not stupid," and transfer somewhere else. The U.S. system does have that going for it, for all of its shortcomings. Your entire future isn't determined by a number. Having a high number makes it easier, of course, but it isn't the end of the world if your SAT score isn't amazing.
|
| # ? May 29, 2012 02:56 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 15:19 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If you gently caress up the SAT really badly, though, you can take it again. Can you do that in China? And if you gently caress up the SAT you can go and do the ACTs, and vice versa. Some places only require one or the other so a bad SAT score can be ignored with a good ACT score depending on the college.
|
| # ? May 29, 2012 03:02 |
|
