Posts by nimblelynx7

Jose Wells3 said:I'm with you there, John, but that doesn't mean we should scrap high schools or strip them of their value—it means we need to evolve them. Vocational programs definitely need more support; that's where my heart lies. I never actually wanted to teach at a prep school; I wanted to be in a trade school because I live for the hands-on stuff. I love students who are out there doing practical work—they're more vibrant, more capable, and honestly, just more relatable to me. That said... I’ve been in some incredible academic academies and seen what they can achieve when done right.

My issue with our conversation is this palpable layer of frustration you carry, which seems rooted in your own educational background. I see it all the time with my colleagues, too—posting statuses like, "Another day down, and I still haven't used sine or cosine." Where's the progress in an attitude like that? It's just venting personal grievances. For me, physics was ruined by one bad teacher back when I was a driven high schooler, but I refuse to disrespect the subject. Why? Because I actually *need* that knowledge in my field to turn raw data into reality, to parse scientific papers, and to explain how scientific breakthroughs have shaped literary movements.

That sense of realism emerged from historical shifts and scientific leaps—take the invention of photography, for instance. None of your science classes will show you those intersections; only a subject like American English will. No math class is going to train you in reading comprehension, which is a skill you'll need to pass on in every other field, nor will any lab build your vocabulary the way a social studies course does. In the sciences, we expect kids to already possess those competencies; we don't spend our time building them from scratch.

Let me repeat this for anyone craving socialization: parents put the phones in their kids' hands, not the schools. You are the ones shaping your children's world. You aren't collaborating with other parents, and you aren't encouraging kids to go play in the park in the safest country in the world. You are responsible. We are responsible. Not the school. It isn't the school's job to fix a broken society by keeping kids trapped in an institution for longer hours. Our duty is to get them away from their screens and facilitate elective socialization, rather than forcing a manufactured version of society on them within a classroom.

It’s us, not the school. Even if schools try to help, you're the ones raising them with smartphones glued to their faces.

Fine. What specific changes would you make to prep schools, and how would you bolster the vocational ones?

Jose Wells3 said:I'm with you there, John, but that doesn't mean we should scrap high schools or strip them of their value—it means we need to evolve them. Vocational programs definitely need more support; that's where my heart lies. I never actually wanted to teach at a prep school; I wanted to be in a trade school because I live for the hands-on stuff. I love students who are out there doing practical work—they're more vibrant, more capable, and honestly, just more relatable to me. That said... I’ve been in some incredible academic academies and seen what they can achieve when done right.

My issue with our conversation is this palpable layer of frustration you carry, which seems rooted in your own educational background. I see it all the time with my colleagues, too—posting statuses like, "Another day down, and I still haven't used sine or cosine." Where's the progress in an attitude like that? It's just venting personal grievances. For me, physics was ruined by one bad teacher back when I was a driven high schooler, but I refuse to disrespect the subject. Why? Because I actually *need* that knowledge in my field to turn raw data into reality, to parse scientific papers, and to explain how scientific breakthroughs have shaped literary movements.

That sense of realism emerged from historical shifts and scientific leaps—take the invention of photography, for instance. None of your science classes will show you those intersections; only a subject like American English will. No math class is going to train you in reading comprehension, which is a skill you'll need to pass on in every other field, nor will any lab build your vocabulary the way a social studies course does. In the sciences, we expect kids to already possess those competencies; we don't spend our time building them from scratch.

Let me repeat this for anyone craving socialization: parents put the phones in their kids' hands, not the schools. You are the ones shaping your children's world. You aren't collaborating with other parents, and you aren't encouraging kids to go play in the park in the safest country in the world. You are responsible. We are responsible. Not the school. It isn't the school's job to fix a broken society by keeping kids trapped in an institution for longer hours. Our duty is to get them away from their screens and facilitate elective socialization, rather than forcing a manufactured version of society on them within a classroom.

It’s us, not the school. Even if schools try to help, you're the ones raising them with smartphones glued to their faces.

Fine. I will attempt to be more neutral.

Jose Wells3 said:I'm with you there, John, but that doesn't mean we should scrap high schools or strip them of their value—it means we need to evolve them. Vocational programs definitely need more support; that's where my heart lies. I never actually wanted to teach at a prep school; I wanted to be in a trade school because I live for the hands-on stuff. I love students who are out there doing practical work—they're more vibrant, more capable, and honestly, just more relatable to me. That said... I’ve been in some incredible academic academies and seen what they can achieve when done right.

My issue with our conversation is this palpable layer of frustration you carry, which seems rooted in your own educational background. I see it all the time with my colleagues, too—posting statuses like, "Another day down, and I still haven't used sine or cosine." Where's the progress in an attitude like that? It's just venting personal grievances. For me, physics was ruined by one bad teacher back when I was a driven high schooler, but I refuse to disrespect the subject. Why? Because I actually *need* that knowledge in my field to turn raw data into reality, to parse scientific papers, and to explain how scientific breakthroughs have shaped literary movements.

That sense of realism emerged from historical shifts and scientific leaps—take the invention of photography, for instance. None of your science classes will show you those intersections; only a subject like American English will. No math class is going to train you in reading comprehension, which is a skill you'll need to pass on in every other field, nor will any lab build your vocabulary the way a social studies course does. In the sciences, we expect kids to already possess those competencies; we don't spend our time building them from scratch.

Let me repeat this for anyone craving socialization: parents put the phones in their kids' hands, not the schools. You are the ones shaping your children's world. You aren't collaborating with other parents, and you aren't encouraging kids to go play in the park in the safest country in the world. You are responsible. We are responsible. Not the school. It isn't the school's job to fix a broken society by keeping kids trapped in an institution for longer hours. Our duty is to get them away from their screens and facilitate elective socialization, rather than forcing a manufactured version of society on them within a classroom.

It’s us, not the school. Even if schools try to help, you're the ones raising them with smartphones glued to their faces.

Doesn't that strike you as self-deprecating humor, or just a way to vent about being forced to learn things labeled as "core curriculum" that they had zero interest in? They knew then they didn't care, and now they realize they were right, which only adds to the frustration.

Sarah Hall53 said:The SAT is basically designed for high school students in academic tracks because, at its core, it’s the final hurdle for those finishing up a traditional four-year college prep curriculum.
I mean, think about it—universities tailor their entrance exams toward these kids probably because they find students from that background easier to work with. If they actually wanted people coming straight from vocational programs, they’d just adjust the testing to fit them, right? It makes sense.

The fact that kids from other four-year technical schools can even sit for this exam—without having to pull an extra year or two of "bridge classes" to catch up to a standard academic track—is actually a massive concession to vocational students. In so many other education systems, that’s just unthinkable. Usually, if you want to head off to university, you’re forced to make up all those missing academic credits first before you're even allowed to touch the final exam. And even then, you're often restricted to studying things within your specific field... which, honestly, isn't really a "degree" in the way most people think. Like, a nursing student isn't studying medicine, they're studying nursing. There's a difference.

So they're actually that good? The exam has to be watered down just so they can get through admissions?

Quincy:

Mad Hatter Asks: The fact that students from other four-year vocational schools can even sit for the high school equivalency exams—without having to pull an extra year or two of "bridge classes"—is a massive concession to vocational programs. In most other systems, that’s just unthinkable. If they want to pursue a university degree, they should be forced to complete all the missing general education credits from a standard high school curriculum before they're even allowed near a final exam. And let's be clear: passing that exam doesn't grant them a free pass to study anything they want; it only qualifies them for specialized vocational degrees within their own field. For instance, training to be a nurse isn't the same thing as studying medicine. It's a distinction that needs to stay firm.

Meeting them halfway? On what grounds? They walk around acting like they’re some kind of supermen, yet we're expected to take the exact same exam as them—even though they didn't study the same material or even take the same courses. It makes no sense.
I've got a few names floating around in my head for this, but "meeting halfway" just doesn't cut it.

Jose Wells3 said:That's not how it works. Right now, in a school in Chicago, a PhD student from MIT is teaching a class—and get this, he actually graduated from a traditional high school before heading to MIT.

As much as high schools get on my nerves, your take is dangerous and frankly disrespectful to everyone coming out of those schools who go on to dominate enrollment at top-tier universities here in the States and abroad. I'm talking about our students, but also the world-class students everywhere.

There’s a more civilized, sensible way to say this, and I totally get your point—vocational programs really should have more rigorous curricula and better pathways into specialized university programs.

It’s unheard of, really—it's unbelievable that students from vocational tracks struggle to get into medical school.

Are we talking about those same universities that bend their entrance requirements just to cater to prep school kids? Is that why the national exams are rigged to match those elite private academy curriculums, just making it easier for those "supermen" graduates to breeze right through enrollment?

Jose Wells3 said:That's not how it works. Right now, in a school in Chicago, a PhD student from MIT is teaching a class—and get this, he actually graduated from a traditional high school before heading to MIT.

As much as high schools get on my nerves, your take is dangerous and frankly disrespectful to everyone coming out of those schools who go on to dominate enrollment at top-tier universities here in the States and abroad. I'm talking about our students, but also the world-class students everywhere.

There’s a more civilized, sensible way to say this, and I totally get your point—vocational programs really should have more rigorous curricula and better pathways into specialized university programs.

It’s unheard of, really—it's unbelievable that students from vocational tracks struggle to get into medical school.

It’s just impossible. Imagine some university literature professor walking into a hospital, only to be met by a nurse who’s nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. Someone who knows their job but hasn't the slightest clue about realism, let alone Fyodor Dostoevsky or The Iliad.

Anthony Stewart5 said:I don't know anything about your background, whether you have children, or what your own relationship with the education system looks like.

I am speaking strictly from my perspective as a parent. In our experience, when my child was in after-school care, they were exceptionally well looked after; they received three nutritious meals, had their homework completed, and returned home feeling genuinely content. Is it not true that many parents would find a sense of relief if they didn't have to spend every evening hovering over their children to ensure they study? Furthermore, wouldn't this provide children with a vital opportunity to socialize and cultivate a sense of self-discipline?
To be perfectly honest, I struggle to see any significant advantage in an eleven-year-old coming home at 12:30 or 1:00 PM only to sit around waiting for their parents to finish the workday. 🤷

I have a kid too. Preschool age right now.
I wasn't born in my 30s like some of these parents today.
There’s zero socialization happening here, let alone any actual self-discipline. All you’re learning is how to be obedient—and in the process, you’re just making yourself unfit for the real world.
I see plenty of benefits here.
I don't see the issue. Letting a kid stay home alone for three hours to just sit with their own thoughts isn't a crime.
Seriously, instead of being handed three ready-made meals, they’ll actually have to prepare at least one themselves. Heat it up in the microwave, or heaven forbid, use a stove. Are we really going to let our kids—even if it's a boy—learn how to use a stove? Better they just memorize the GDP of Uzbekistan instead.
Imagine walking through the door only to realize the heat isn't on because someone left the radiator valves shut—or even worse, the water heater is switched off entirely. What kind of logic is that? We shouldn't have to sit a child down for a lecture just so they can learn how to operate basic home appliances.

Absolute disaster. Total lack of oversight, zero self-discipline, just pure, unbridled autonomy. It's a mess.

Most parents back then just made it work. Seriously, they survived, and they even managed to raise us. My grandparents were out the door for work by 7 AM, while we kids were heading to school at 8—sometimes even pulling afternoon classes too. Everyone pulled through. Nobody died from hunger, thirst, or freezing in the winter. They just dealt with it.

Anthony Stewart5 said:In Seattle, they only offer that for the lower grades.

Typically, one teacher handles half the subjects while another covers the rest. The school day pauses around noon for lunch and a quick break before resuming; one instructor takes the morning block, and the other manages the afternoon.

To make a day look, it follows this flow:
Morning assembly and a brief meeting to start the day
Breakfast
Classes, studying, or playtime
Lunch, combined with play and learning sessions
More lessons and tackling any necessary homework
Afternoon snack

The textbooks stay at the school from Monday through Friday, and students only take them home for the weekends.
It is worth noting that the fixed schedule was primarily for the specialized instructors teaching specific subjects; everything else was left to the discretion of the main teachers, allowing them to decide the best balance between instruction, playtime, and study sessions.

They have dedicated foreign language instructors as well; my child had a specialist for that in fourth grade, along with a music teacher, and I believe there were others as well, though I cannot recall specifically.

By the time the children entered fifth grade, they were completely prepared for specialized subject instruction thanks to that immersive full-day environment, and in my opinion, this model should be extended through eighth grade.

Why stop at 8th? Extend it until high school graduation? No, not graduation—until they get a college degree?

shadowtiger0 said:I wouldn't go that far regarding it being "enough" for graduation. High school curricula aren't some joke—at least they weren't back when I was sitting in those desks.

The real headache is figuring out how to attract top-tier STEM talent into the public school system these days... I never could have imagined a world where kinesiology majors would actively dodge teaching jobs (because, let’s face it, it isn't exactly rocket science), yet here we are. It's simple: there are so many opportunities now. You can make just as much money running a few private training sessions, coaching local club teams, or doing some collegiate sports consulting, and boom—you're pulling in a teacher's salary without any of the soul-crushing paperwork, angry parents, or nightmare principals.

Nowadays, it's really just the humanities majors who are struggling; I honestly don't see a way for them to monetize their degrees in the actual workforce while staying within their field of study.

Even the linguists—those specializing in actually "useful" languages—have basically become the new STEM kids.

Then where else are you supposed to learn this stuff if not in college? Prep schools are honestly the worst kind of secondary education, even if they act all elite and superior. You spend four years studying everything, then graduate and realize you don't actually know anything useful; everything you learned is basically just trivia for pub quizzes. If you don't head straight to a university after that, you're screwed. You'll be forced into some specific vocational training for a job, and all that knowledge about the Baroque period, logic, the GDP of Uzbekistan, or Napoleon wars? You can just throw it in the trash.

So you're claiming the curriculum at an electrotechnical high school is a total joke, and anyone can teach it?

shadowtiger0 said:I'm in the same boat—two degrees myself, one in Engineering and one in Education.

When I look at my doctor friends or family, I feel like I'm stuck in a sort of intellectual middle ground—both in terms of career trajectory and actual knowledge accumulation, not to mention the stress levels. Honestly, the only person I’d trade places with is a friend of mine who’s a physical therapist; he’s got it pretty good. The only downside is the pay—it's kind of similar to what a veteran high school teacher pulls in.

You misunderstood me. I have five years in electrical engineering and five years in law.

It all depends on what you do and where you do it. You need to see the kind of expertise and pressure a lead engineer deals with when they're commissioning an industrial plant worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Unfortunately, that wasn't me—that was a colleague of mine.

shadowtiger0 said:Because that’s exactly what it is. Every single one of my colleagues who came from competitive prep schools tells me that high school was actually tougher than college. And we’re talking specifically about the education major here, just so there’s no confusion.

I see people here using "veterinarian" as some sort of insult toward the Secretary (even though the man is a PhD, but let's just gloss over that for a second). Honestly, I wouldn’t want MY KIDS being taught by teachers who think being a veterinarian is somehow derogatory.

It’s an incredibly demanding program—certainly way harder than what some of my colleagues currently working in schools went through—so when they try to degrade him by calling him a "vet," they’re really just exposing themselves. It says more about them than anything else. But then again, I’ve seen plenty of that in faculty lounges: massive egos with absolutely zero substance to back them up.

If they wanted to call him a Republican Party hack, a bad politician, or whatever other labels they want to throw around—fine, no problem there.

But the guy is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, and people with four years of experience from the College of Arts and Sciences are out here trying to use his profession as a slur...

Exactly. Then again, they say an intelligent, educated person knows when they’re out of their depth and stays out of it.

I have two degrees. Does that mean I can teach veterinarians how to treat cattle? They only finished one, right? I've seen a cow, it has four legs, and I've drunk milk—I know where it comes from. Surely that makes me an expert.

Jose Wells3 said:Before we dive in, perhaps we should take a collective look at how things are handled over in Europe at Eurydice ? That might help us draw some conclusions about what qualifications are actually necessary, what alternative pathways could look like, and where they fit within the educational hierarchy.

As I mentioned before, the issue of subpar degree programs persists. It’s the same old story: whenever people start criticizing education, they aim their shots at primary and secondary schools, while the universities are busy trying to "reform" everything—all while lazy bureaucrats and political appointees run failing departments.

The sheer rigidity of our university system is a problem in itself. On paper, you can supposedly do anything. In reality? You can't. How am I supposed to study chemistry alongside English literature, or physics with art history, if that’s the specific combination I want for my career? The system just won't allow it.

I also think it’s a solid idea to allow people to earn certifications for high-demand subjects through alternative routes. However, we should set some guardrails: perhaps a minimum of a Bachelor's degree for certain roles, or even a Master's combined with relevant teaching experience and a certain level of maturity.

I fully support involving students in the process. We need to drastically cut enrollment quotas for oversaturated fields and boost them for others. Furthermore, we should be hiring students to fill specialized vacancies via a centralized database. Honestly? I’d advocate for penalizing those who refuse such placements. Of course, this would have to be balanced with incentives for those who step up—things like seniority credits and academic points for practical skills.

My stance remains unchanged: for core subject instruction, nothing less than a Master's degree should be considered—except, perhaps, in cases of extreme teacher shortages. Even then, we could follow a hybrid model of classroom instruction and lectures, which I’ll detail further down.

While I welcome alternative pathways and additional training for non-educators, let’s be realistic: with salaries at this current level, nobody is going to jump into teaching for extra work.

In my view, it’s perfectly reasonable for elementary teachers to undergo a five-year program. They could complete three years of traditional lectures and exams, followed by two years of heavy practice and specialized coursework on a 70:30 ratio. A final thesis based on their actual field experience should be mandatory, along with a professional exam and licensing.

Early childhood educators could follow a similar track: three years of college followed by two years of hands-on practice and focused instruction with a reduced course load. This would culminate in a Master's thesis centered on their practical experience, topped off by a professional exam and licensure.

Oh, and yes—this would finally clear out the masses of pure theorists from the universities. I believe I've touched on that before.

A whole crowd of theorists. Ph.Ds who haven't seen a lick of real-world application for anything they teach. Or worse, they're teaching stuff they specialized in twenty years ago—outdated, obsolete garbage.

shadowtiger0 said:Honestly, an Associate's degree—or what we'd call a Bachelor's in some contexts—is plenty for teaching lower grades if we're talking about actual subject knowledge. For decades, people taught with much less advanced credentials, and frankly, I don't see those teachers being any worse than the ones we have today.

It’s enough to teach anyone up until high school graduation. But that’ll never happen because everyone is too busy protecting their cushy seats and sinecures at the state teacher colleges.

Carl Bishop2 said:I guess I’m just saying that times have changed—the job itself has become way more demanding than it was twenty or thirty years ago. Honestly, I think any teacher who has been in the trenches for a couple of decades and is still at it would tell you the exact same thing.

So we really need five years of college for this?
Every job has gotten harder, but that doesn't mean every single one requires a five-year degree.

Carl Bishop2 said:Look, there’s no denying that personality plays a huge role in being a successful teacher—just like it does for lawyers or business owners—but I wouldn't go so far as to say we should lower the academic standards because of it.

Then how do you explain the fact that just a few decades ago, all you needed was two extra years of schooling to teach in a classroom, yet suddenly today, the U.S. Department of Education demands five?

Exactly. I said 50% of people would threaten to quit if this actually happens, but for certain professions, the risk is even higher. It doesn't take a mass exodus to trigger a total collapse; just a small fraction leaving is enough.

That’s why I suspect all these threats won't lead to anything in the end. Though, honestly? I wish they would. I wish the whole system would finally crash so everyone could see the emperor has no clothes. Then maybe we could actually start over from scratch on some solid ground. Unfortunately, our construction crews aren't exactly known for their competence, and those guys will never quit—not even when everything falls apart.

It’ll be interesting to see if even half of these people actually follow through on their resignation threats.

My take? In the end, there won't be any actual change—just a lot of collective whining before business continues as usual.

John Palmer9 said:Maybe we should lower the requirements for teachers—not necessarily needing those advanced degrees. I guess personality and mental readiness matter more than having a PhD or a Master's. It feels a bit redundant to require a specialized engineer just to teach basic math or chemistry.
If the goal is to turn full-day schooling into glorified babysitting, then I guess that's what it is. That should probably be strictly voluntary and limited to elementary school kids.

Do you honestly think you can pay bachelors less for the exact same job?
That's exactly the problem with government jobs. You're basically getting paid to push paper instead of actually doing any real work.
I agree. You don't need a five-year degree just to be a teacher, and that goes for a whole host of other jobs too. But let's be clear: universities actually need to have a purpose.

Jose Wells3 said:So, we’re all chasing those Finnish-style results while relying on a teaching force that hasn't quite hit its stride educationally.

It’s really the one thing we actually have in common with the Finns, yet we seem completely incapable of tapping into the actual potential of the people right in front of us.

I mean, is anyone even going to mention the desperate need for a total overhaul of the university system?

Compared to whom?
Decades ago, teachers actually held some level of pedagogical authority, and they used it to get the job done until retirement. Now, suddenly, that isn't enough. On top of that, everyone loves to claim students were "better" back in the day—ignoring the fact that the curriculum was significantly more demanding. It makes you wonder: is teacher education and student intelligence becoming inversely proportional?

Susan James said:So, I was watching this vet on TV, and they were saying that parents who are pushing back just don't seem to get the whole idea behind a full-time program.
The speaker explained it quite nicely: kids would basically be at school until about 2:00 PM, maybe 2:30 PM at the latest, and anything after that is totally optional.
Plus, once they wrap up their school day, there’s no more work to worry about—no more homework or studying at the kitchen table late at night.
They’ll get everything done while they're actually at school.

It feels like we might be overcomplicating this debate when the solution seems so straightforward.
On top of that, since students won't have access to AI to cheat or copy answers, they'll have to rely on what they actually know, which is why having them do all their assignments during school hours is such a great move.

I'm just trying to crunch the numbers here... if an average 6th grader currently has about 5 hours of classes a day—meaning they're finished by noon and then grab lunch—they could spend that window from 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM finishing everything up. They can review what they didn't catch, finish their homework, and then be completely free after 2:30 PM with zero responsibilities at home.🙏
(Of course, math changes slightly because of the four extra elective hours per week plus two more for math and history, but those are just small details. Since they'll have a bit more time during that afternoon block, they can easily knock out the homework for five or six different subjects in an hour or ninety minutes.)

Honestly, though, I wouldn't want to be in a teacher's shoes. Imagine having angry parents showing up at 3:00 PM, giving you a hard time just because you worked those extra two hours—especially when their kid is actually crushing their exams! But hey, I suppose if the pay increases accordingly $833, it might make dealing with that stress a little easier.

It was already a mess, but now? It’s going to be even worse once the failing grades start rolling in—or even the mediocre ones—because kids haven't studied a single thing at home, claiming they learned everything in class.
I honestly think teaching will become the most undersupplied profession in the country. This current setup is basically a recipe for a public lynching of educators.

School is life, and you don't have any other life besides school.

We’re on the right track to taking this over.

Seriously, how is it even possible that Scandinavians have the best school systems out there, yet once they grow up, they just want to end it all?

Jose Wells3 said:Even now, ninety percent of them can point out the USA on a map without breaking a sweat. They aren't exactly losing sleep over the fear that a classmate might take out half the class and the teacher mid-lesson.

So, they get their stay until age ten—some even make it through fifth grade. After that? We don't need them. Those who have actually seen a street fighter in action understand exactly what these kids are capable of.

That’s assuming the goal isn't just to create cripples—and frankly, that looks exactly like the goal here.

Paul Davis2 said:That’s five points, but hey, it's just your take. The U.S. Attorney General for children has actually flagged this as a major concern lately—there have been countless articles over the last few years where she's specifically questioned about this exact issue.

If we actually wanted to protect kids, we’d abolish the Attorney General's office entirely instead of constantly asking for her input. Nothing is perfect, and we already have enough problems—she doesn't need to go inventing new ones.

Sarah Hall53 said:I mean, until they hit 18, they really ought to be under supervision—like, at least 8 hours a day, maybe even 10 if you're being thorough.

And that’s on top of regular school hours.