🚀 go-pugleaf

Herman Rubin wrote:

<snip>

>>so why in the hell are the standards in this and education in
>>general being ALLOWED to slip lower and lower evey few years?
> 
> 
> The tendency is always for this to happen, unless there are 
> enough in positions to do something about it to prevent it.

Or if there's an incentive to do so.  I grew up in the post-Sputnik 
1960s and what I learned in Grade 9 math was far superior to what I've 
seen high schools produce nowadays.  A major difference between those 
two eras is that the Cold War ended years ago, so there's no real reason 
to improve the educational system as there's nobody to compete with.

> One of the safeguards is that it can be possible to make
> comparisons; this is something which is stupidly being "done"
> in comparing schools by using multiple choice tests.  But how
> much can this do if it is intended that "all", except those
> with severe mental handicaps, graduate high school?
> 
> It was the idea to educate children according to age, which
> requires reduction of content to the lowest common denominator,
> that forces this situation.  Politically, state universities
> cannot refuse to admit graduates from the state high schools
> with good grades, nor to flunk out too many of them.  And if
> private universities do not admit graduate students from these
> state schools with good grades, the federal government, which
> is the MAJOR funding source for research, will find ways to
> cut their research funding.  We have another problem now; the
> student ratings can kill a faculty member's career, no matter
> how good a real teaching job is being done.

Worse yet is that it seems to be the sole basis upon which one's career 
depends.  Unfortunately, student evaluations can be manipulated to 
produce a desired outcome.

> 
> 
>>And as for marks why is it that grades are always artificially inflated
>>not reflecting the true nature of a student's performance?
> 
> 
> Those same educationists tried to make all grades relative.
> One class is as good as another, isn't it?  (VERY definitely
> not the case.)

At the same time, though, curricula and standards can vary from one 
class to another.  That's something I encountered all too often.

> 
> 
>>Exactly who was the bizarre person that thought this would be a good
>>idea?
> 
> 
> The "Progressive Educators", the group led by John Dewey, who
> essentially took over the public schools during the depression.
> The very democratic 19th century voters had no problems with
> high school requiring ability, and college requiring more.
> But this philosophy was that age and socialization were more
> important than education, and in the Depression, they were able
> to sell this to most of the public.  Affirmative action has not
> helped, as anyone who flunks a black will be accused of racial
> discrimination, no matter what the scores.

At the same time, there's the issue of how educational institutions 
should be run.  A major shift occurred around fifteen years ago when 
many adopted a business model, and, so, they no longer had students, but 
"customers", complete with the tomfoolery that goes with it, including 
team-building and focus groups.

The place I used to teach at went into it whole hog.  It was amazing to 
see how many people actually bought into it.