Law

[Hazard]

Grok that is perfect example of this ignorance. Teachers these days are having to set the bar too low. The fact of the matter is this: goals should always be a high bar in which the probability of reaching them is only about 50:50. For example, say you take the SAT and score a 1000. Perhaps you should say to yourself "1000 isn't up to par, I'll shoot for 1400." If you aim for that and strive for that, even if you don't reach your 1400 goal and maybe reach, say, 1320, you've still accomplished a lot haven't you? Teachers fail to set a high goal for their students and they therefore never progress past the standpoint of average, or mediocre at best. Educators need to boost the level and intensity of the curriculum and get students more activly involved, rather than just skating by being average or just barely up to par. In the real world, ignorance is NOT bliss, but you wouldn't know it by spening time in our schools.

[Grok]

I'd like to think preganancy prevention, drug/alcohol prevention, anger management, etc.  are programs that teach avoidance of trouble.  They are real problems that the public school system is trying to address.  Knowing the difference between civil and criminal law is not going to solve these problems.

I'm sure you'd like to think that, and THAT is precisely the point.

If schools would teach kids how to read, write, and THINK, then they wouldn't need to dedicate semesters to avoidance of pregnancy, violence, drugs and guns.

[Hazard]

If they tought kids the basics of knowledge they could decide for themselves how to better govern their lives (i.e. avoid drugs and alcohol, abstain from unsafe sexual contact, etc.).

[MyndFyre]

As a Californian student myself, I wish we had more time to study Goverment, Civics, and Economics

That is what college is for  At my school, one could take about 2 years of Gov/Econ.  Many courses aren't offered partly because of college expectations.

Aye.  This spring, I'll be taking three political science classes.

[MyndFyre]

I'd like to think preganancy prevention, drug/alcohol prevention, anger management, etc.  are programs that teach avoidance of trouble.  They are real problems that the public school system is trying to address.  Knowing the difference between civil and criminal law is not going to solve these problems.

I'm sure you'd like to think that, and THAT is precisely the point.

If schools would teach kids how to read, write, and THINK, then they wouldn't need to dedicate semesters to avoidance of pregnancy, violence, drugs and guns.

This is a very modern-liberal-socialist (though not incorrect) thought - somewhat like J.S. Mill.  People on their own are without reason; as society progresses, it is evident to me (at least in America) that society has rescinded from the era of thought of common good to thought of Lockean self-interest.  It's no longer about "What can I do to increase my pleasure AND that of those around me," but "What can I do to increase my pleasure, ESPECIALLY at the EXPENSE of those around me?"

I shudder to think of where we are headed during my lifetime.

[Hazard]

What textbook did you get John Stuart Mill's ideas from? He never said that people on their own are without reason

[iago]

What textbook did you get John Stuart Mill's ideas from? He never said that people on their own are without reason

I was just going to say that; it sounds like the opposite of what Mill would say.  

[dxoigmn]

Grok that is perfect example of this ignorance. Teachers these days are having to set the bar too low. The fact of the matter is this: goals should always be a high bar in which the probability of reaching them is only about 50:50. For example, say you take the SAT and score a 1000. Perhaps you should say to yourself "1000 isn't up to par, I'll shoot for 1400." If you aim for that and strive for that, even if you don't reach your 1400 goal and maybe reach, say, 1320, you've still accomplished a lot haven't you? Teachers fail to set a high goal for their students and they therefore never progress past the standpoint of average, or mediocre at best. Educators need to boost the level and intensity of the curriculum and get students more activly involved, rather than just skating by being average or just barely up to par. In the real world, ignorance is NOT bliss, but you wouldn't know it by spening time in our schools.

My high school (a public one) set the standards very high.  Teachers were given incentives if their students scored high on the AP tests.  I'd say atleast 80% of the student body took atleast 1 AP class.  In fact, my whole school district was oriented this way.  My middle school education was as intense, likewise was my elementary education.

[iago]

But did your school do well on the ap tests?  everybody in my school could have taken ap (there's no grade requirement, other than passing the prereqs), but most of them woudl have failed it.

Also, how smart somebody is doesn't necessarely have to do with how high their marks are, although marks tend to be an indication.  I know a guy that did rather poorly in school because he was lazy and didn't try, took no ap classes, and is exactly where I am now (3rd year honours CS).

[Soul Taker]

So you're either saying he is actually smart, or you are actually dumb  

[hismajesty]

I'm in IB does that count?  

[Tuberload]

But did your school do well on the ap tests?  everybody in my school could have taken ap (there's no grade requirement, other than passing the prereqs), but most of them woudl have failed it.

Also, how smart somebody is doesn't necessarely have to do with how high their marks are, although marks tend to be an indication.  I know a guy that did rather poorly in school because he was lazy and didn't try, took no ap classes, and is exactly where I am now (3rd year honours CS).

I think that is because the school does not challenge the student enough. I had a 1.12 GPA or something similar to that during my first three years of high school. During the first few months of my senior year I continued with that GPA then got it up to a 3.6 for the first semester and a 4.0 for the second. This wasn't because of the curriculum getting more challenging, but it was because of the lack of challenge that I did have such a low GPA. I personally do not like to do 2+ hours of homework when it requires very little thought. Therefore I did not do the homework and barely passed.

I also do not quite agree with the whole, teach kids and they won't have sex or do drugs thing. I have always been very capable of knowing right from wrong, and making the best decisions based on the facts, yet I got into drugs. This was not because I was dumb and didn't know better. It was because of family problems, and me not caring anymore. Then of course I got addicted and my life went to hell. I think home is were those type problems need to be solved. Schools just need to help excel the learning process of those people capable. I believe most people are capable of this, and the ones that aren't that's fine. If not academically they will be successful somewhere if they try.

[dxoigmn]

But did your school do well on the ap tests?  everybody in my school could have taken ap (there's no grade requirement, other than passing the prereqs), but most of them woudl have failed it.

Also, how smart somebody is doesn't necessarely have to do with how high their marks are, although marks tend to be an indication.  I know a guy that did rather poorly in school because he was lazy and didn't try, took no ap classes, and is exactly where I am now (3rd year honours CS).

Yes our school did rather well on the AP tests.  Most of my friends got 5s on almost every AP test they took.  The "not so smart" ones atleast got 3s.  I've never heard of anyone getting anything lower than a 3.  

[MyndFyre]

What textbook did you get John Stuart Mill's ideas from? He never said that people on their own are without reason

My point was that Mill said people had to learn reason, that it was not inherent (as Locke said).