Posts by rustyjackal10

Sarah James4 said:Even with that kind of American system, most states actually see better results than what we have here.

As for reading... a culture of literacy starts at home and in school. People should be reading every day—parents to kids, kids to parents, teachers to students, even in preschool. Here, reading and writing feel like a guessing game, and that applies to books too.

Assigning a book is the easy part. Especially for a ten-year-old kid... especially if most of them haven't ever had to read before.🤷

It’s because once they hit higher education, they go down this path of extreme specialization where they know absolutely nothing outside of one tiny, narrow niche—whereas over here, we tend to prioritize a broader, more general knowledge base.

That's true, and the school system should be geared toward encouraging that well-roundedness, just like I was saying before.

I don't know about you guys, but I’ve been sitting here thinking about that whole "harbinger" concept lately—you know, those little signs or omens that suggest something big is right around the corner? It’s funny how life works like that sometimes. One minute everything is just cruising along, totally normal, and then you see that one weird little thing—a strange coincidence, a sudden shift in the weather, or even just a gut feeling—and suddenly you realize the vibe has shifted completely. It’s like the universe is tapping you on the shoulder, trying to get your attention before the storm actually hits. Honestly, I’m a bit of a sucker for that kind of stuff, even if I try to act all logical about it. I remember back when I was living in Chicago, I had this weird feeling every time the wind picked up from a certain direction... it always felt like a warning of some massive blizzard coming through, and man, I was usually right. Anyway, just a random thought crossing my mind today. What do you all think? Do you believe in those little warning signs, or am I just overthinking things again? kaže:
Since you brought up politics—man, honestly? I’d much rather have someone running this country who spends their days picking up bottles on the street and can barely string three grammatically correct sentences together. At least that person actually knows what it feels like when everything is falling apart—they might actually have a shred of empathy left in them. But the guy currently steering the ship? He’s some silver-tongued orator, totally polished and smooth, but deep down he's just trash. He’s all about looking out for himself instead of being willing to lay it all on the line for the country. That’s supposed to be the whole point of the job, isn't it? It’s the moral core of being a public servant—putting the nation before your own skin.

Honestly, that whole SAT craze is easily the biggest load of garbage ever shoved into the education system—like, seriously, in the last ten thousand years of schooling, we haven't seen anything quite this useless.

I mean, honestly—what does it even matter to me that Segert Hlapic left home back in that second-grade book? Or that train got stuck in the snow in that Mark Twain story I read in fourth grade? Sure, I read them both, but if I’m being real, those memories are pretty thin at this point. The truth is, I don't really care. It’s not like I’m planning on becoming an English professor or anything. Besides, people seem to get what I’m saying whether I’m talking or typing—even if I write like this—so there’s really no reason for me to go out of my way to polish up my grammar or act all fancy with my writing.

Look, if we’re talking about the basic biology of life—just looking at things from a broad perspective—every living thing naturally adapts its way of being to fit its surroundings. That includes how we communicate, too. It's all about the environment you're dropped into, the local vibe, and where you actually call home. So, if I happen to talk with a bit of a West Coast drawl or use certain regional slang, I’m not doing anything wrong—I’m just living according to my nature, you know? It's just how I'm wired to exist in my corner of the world.

There are literally a thousand better things a kid could be doing with their time—I mean, seriously, they could be diving into biology, geograhpy, some hands-on tech stuff, math, or pretty much any other subject that actually matters—than sitting there grinding through these mindless required reading assignments. It’s such a waste. Most students basically tune out of English class the second they wrap up middle school anyway. They just end up copying the homework or skimming the book just enough to scrape by with a D and call it a day so they can finally be done with it.

Look, if students are already pushing back this hard, there’s honestly no point in wasting hundreds of years trying to force them down a path they don't want to walk. Kids today—man, they evolve at such a crazy speed. We've got so many potential musicians, artists, and just straight-up brilliant minds who probably never got their shot simply because the system was too busy forcing them into a box. Instead of actually nurturing that spark or leaning into what they’re clearly passionate about, we basically just make them kill time reading old, dusty classics and other total nonsense that doesn't mean anything to them. It's like we're stifling all that raw talent before it even has a chance to breathe.

Honestly, if you want to see what I mean, just look at Americans—they’re basically the ultimate example of being over-educated yet totally out of touch. From the time they hit third grade all the way through college, most of them aren't actually experiencing life, you know? They're just living through this rigid loop of whatever the school system dictates, combined with that whole "family-meets-school" conditioning. It’s like they’re just following a script from birth. Honestly, even someone who isn't paying close attention can see it—it feels like the younger generation in the US is just completely clueless when it comes to how the real world actually works.

And then you’ve got these kids—barely twenty-one, right?—heading off to Afghanistan, totally convinced they’re out there fighting for freedom and all that. It’s wild. Honestly, most of them couldn't even point Europe out on a map if their lives depended on it, let alone understand the actual geopolitics of what's happening. I mean, don't get me wrong, I get the spirit, but man... the level of naivety is just off the charts.

Honestly, it feels like you don’t really get how politics actually works in this country. Look, being a politician isn't just about standing around complaining that everything is going downhill or whining about having a low salary—though, let's be real, everyone loves to do that. Sure, they’re supposed to work in the best interest of the people (cough, Washington D.C., cough), but there’s way more to it than that. To actually pull this off, you need a solid grasp of basically every field their job touches. You can't just wing it. Plus, since they’re representing the entire nation, they really ought to be highly cultured and well-educated. It’s part of the gig. And honestly, what do you even mean when you throw around a phrase like "giving your life for the country"? That’s a pretty heavy thing to say without much context.

Honestly, I think the SATs are a great idea. Look, students are basically the end product of an entire educational system—I’m definitely oversimplifying here, so bear with me—that needs to be put through a standardized test of general knowledge before they can dive into specialized college majors. The real question isn't actually about the tests themselves, though. It's more about whether the K-12 system is actually doing its job to prepare kids for those exams, and if different school districts are even teaching from the same playbook. That's where the real debate lies, not in the testing itself. At the end of the day, the SAT is just there to act as a baseline—making sure students have hit that specific threshold of knowledge required by the big-shot academic institutions.

Saying Mark Twain wrote *Snowbound*?! Man, I actually feel a little embarrassed reading this... honestly, that’s why we have required reading in school—so we don't look totally clueless about general culture and accidentally claim Twain wrote some random book he didn't. If there were an American author like Jack London, they'd be spinning in their grave right now 🙂
Look, you don't need to be an English teacher (which, by the way, isn't capitalized unless it's at the start of a sentence) just to get this. It's about being well-rounded and knowing authors from here and abroad, which helps spark your imagination and sharpens your critical thinking regarding the book itself—you know, the message the writer is sending and how they express it. Plus, it helps you "polish up" your literacy.

It's obvious you adapt to whoever you're hanging out with, and hey, nobody's stopping you from using whatever regional slang you want (personally, I tend to sound pretty much like a New Yorker), and nobody's gonna come after you if you're illiterate. It's just that people won't exactly look at you with huge respect, and you might miss out on certain opportunities down the road. Nobody's forcing your hand, but you've gotta live with the consequences.

The fact that students try to dodge English class is probably more about *how* it's taught rather than the subject itself. But the subject is incredibly important, and this avoidance you're talking about doesn't seem like a good sign to me, don't you think?
I agree that the system doesn't push ambition enough, but that means we should expand the curriculum, not slap more restrictions on it. Certain educational standards have to be met, otherwise we'll end up like those Americans you mentioned (though you used them in a totally wrong context) where we won't even be able to hold our own on the global stage.

Americans are anything but overeducated. They have this super narrow education system with basically just three core mandatory subjects plus some electives they have to pick from. Their lack of knowledge comes directly from a system that encourages them to just do whatever they feel like, and that definitely doesn't involve building up any real general knowledge or culture.

And trust me, Afghanistan is a way more complicated story than just finishing a required reading assignment...

brisktiger56 said:If we actually did this, teachers would HAVE to respect different takes on the same book. Instead of everyone just nodding along, what an author intended could actually spark some decent, productive debates in the classroom!

It wouldn't be about just checking boxes anymore—it would be about recognizing when a student is actually putting themselves out there, using language to defend a stance or an opinion, almost like they're presenting a thesis based on what they read.

Oh, absolutely, they would have to. Honestly, that’s what makes a great teacher, and frankly, we need way more people like that in our school systems (though let’s be real, the shortage of actually competent teachers is a whole other headache entirely). Right now, the whole "What did the author mean?" thing usually just boils down to the student giving the answer the teacher WANTS to hear.
Like, imagine an author writes that their curtains were a strikingly bright blue. The teacher asks little Perica what the author was trying to say. They’re expecting some deep, philosophical epiphany, but little Perica just concludes that the sentence was meant to highlight the fact that the curtains were, well, really blue—which totally ticks the teacher off.

But in reality, one person might see a longing for the sky and freedom from sorrow, someone else might see a yearning for love, and little Perica is just pointing out that the curtains WERE indeed blue. We shouldn't be looking for a single "correct" answer or forcing kids to memorize plot points and literary critiques by rote. We should be encouraging free thought—where students talk it out among themselves until they realize the point is that the author’s intent eventually meets whatever the reader concludes.


"Wouldn't it stop being about just checking boxes and start being about recognizing how someone personally connects with a text—using language to back up an opinion, almost like presenting a thesis from a book?"

That’s exactly it.

"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested"
- Francis Bacon book

You’re supposed to experience a book, chew on it, form your own take, and then defend it—that’s basically the whole reason we even assign reading in the first place.

brisktiger56 said:That all kind of assumes the kid already has a developed worldview, doesn't it? I mean, how can you decide something is brilliant or tedious if you don't have your own "self" to compare it against? It feels to me like the school system just uses reading lists to cram info into kids, almost like they're just giving them the gears to start thinking with...

Are you suggesting we should encourage students to develop their own personalities regardless of the reading list—basically, independent of the specific ideas the books are pushing?

I am absolutely suggesting that. At the end of the day, all that knowledge is pretty much useless unless it's paired with building actual character and teaching people how to think for themselves.

brisktiger56 said:But then how do you handle grading literature? I mean, how do you even grade that fairly when most kids just pull a summary off the internet?😛

Look, assigned reading is a great tool, but you can't grade it based on a system like—"Hey, show me your notebook, your handwriting looks neat, here’s an A." That's not it. In my experience, reading assignments were always graded through actual discussion or testing; we weren't just quizzed on tiny details from the plot, but rather on the big themes, the metaphors, the moral lessons, and basically, "what was the author trying to say?" To me, there really needs to be room for two specific things when it comes to grading:

1. The author meant what I heard—everyone experiences a book differently. Some people connect with a story one way, others totally differently, and I think every teacher needs to leave space for that personal connection, provided the student can actually back up their take with a solid explanation.

2. "This book is boring and I hate it"—man, I cannot tell you how many times I've seen students get tanked on their grades just for feeling that way... I personally got into a massive, heated debate with my professor once over Mark Twain. Some books are just plain dull for certain people, but honestly, if they can explain *why* it's boring, they should be fine. It proves they actually engaged with the material, understood the author's style, recognized where things went overboard, or identified which of the author's viewpoints they just couldn't get behind.