What's the point of required reading?

I just wanted to say how much I sympathize with anyone working in education if this represents the average parent’s mindset when dealing with teachers. 😢

I always figured that in my own job, I’d have to put up with nonsense without any real way to call people out on it. If that’s how things look in schools, I feel for you and the kids you're teaching. Treating them like precious little snowflakes isn't actually doing anyone any favors.

It’s a sad reality that everyone calls for school reform to move away from rote memorization, yet parents seem to want exactly that—little programmed, high-achieving robots. They just want tiny little worker bees who can memorize formulas, specifically in STEM fields because that's where the money and prestige are now, all while stripping away any sense of creativity or breadth. They'll just end up being the ones posting illiterate comments on Facebook with a disclaimer like, "don't mind my grammar." It's pathetic.

brightheron64 said:Let me clarify things here, because the real issue is that we’re dealing with an absolute idiot of a philosophy professor who refuses to step outside the narrow confines of his own field... he makes zero effort to grasp fundamental concepts like limits or delta t—concepts that his students have to wrestle with on a daily basis, and which are exactly what's needed right now to demystify these little logical dead ends...

By the way, shall we take another look at that whole saga regarding those absolute idiots...
Is it just me, or does it feel like I’m teaching the exact same lesson to every single new group of students, year after year, from my very first day on the job all the way until I finally hit retirement...

Please, don't trivialize such a profound story with that kind of nonsense...

Since I have a few kids of my own running around, I feel like I’ve earned the right to speak up about the school reading list—not only am I intimately familiar with the classics we all had to suffer through, but I also noticed that remarkably few of the titles have actually changed since I was sitting in those desks myself...

So, you're asking me to explain why they all vanished... if you really want me to dive into that whole mystery, I suppose I could try, though it’s a bit of a rabbit hole to fall down... Loda's courier It seems like you might have hit send a little too early, but I am sitting here ready and waiting to help you transform your content... whenever you are ready to share the text, just let me know... Divine dust...Are they just not classic enough? It feels like they’re bordering on being too banal...

Take a look at this... Divine dust... It really stands as one of the most accomplished pieces of prose in all of American literature... Source: Miroslav Krleža Lexicographical Institute

So, if that’s how it works, why on earth shouldn't I be allowed to give my own child the freedom to choose for themselves...

No, he's a teacher. He’s automatically immune to being called an "educated idiot." To him, he's some untouchable authority figure because everyone else is just a clueless amateur.

The title of "educated idiot" is reserved for the engineers and technicians—the ones actually responsible for ensuring the teacher even has a computer or electricity at home and school. But who cares? It's the 21st century. None of that matters to him because he couldn't tell you the color of Anna Karenina's dress, he hasn't a clue what the GDP of Uzbekistan is, and he knows nothing about who died at Thermopylae.

Maria Gray3 said:I just wanted to say how much I sympathize with anyone working in education if this represents the average parent’s mindset when dealing with teachers. 😢

I always figured that in my own job, I’d have to put up with nonsense without any real way to call people out on it. If that’s how things look in schools, I feel for you and the kids you're teaching. Treating them like precious little snowflakes isn't actually doing anyone any favors.

It’s a sad reality that everyone calls for school reform to move away from rote memorization, yet parents seem to want exactly that—little programmed, high-achieving robots. They just want tiny little worker bees who can memorize formulas, specifically in STEM fields because that's where the money and prestige are now, all while stripping away any sense of creativity or breadth. They'll just end up being the ones posting illiterate comments on Facebook with a disclaimer like, "don't mind my grammar." It's pathetic.

People just want their kids to have practical, useful knowledge for daily life, not to be participants in a wild goose chase. Everything else is just hypocrisy and passing the buck. Those illiterate posts happen after 11 to 17 years of schooling, whether they are on Facebook or not.

I suppose I should probably start by mentioning that... well, there isn't much to say here, really. It feels a bit strange to just sit down and provide a blank space, though I guess that’s the nature of things sometimes. Maybe there was an intention behind this, or perhaps it’s just one of those moments where the words haven't quite decided to show up yet. I'm not entirely sure, honestly. It’s a bit like standing in front of a vast, empty field in Nebraska, just waiting for something—anything, really—to break the horizon, but for now, it's just quiet. Very quiet.

Maria Gray3 said:I just wanted to say how much I sympathize with anyone working in education if this represents the average parent’s mindset when dealing with teachers. 😢

I always figured that in my own job, I’d have to put up with nonsense without any real way to call people out on it. If that’s how things look in schools, I feel for you and the kids you're teaching. Treating them like precious little snowflakes isn't actually doing anyone any favors.

It’s a sad reality that everyone calls for school reform to move away from rote memorization, yet parents seem to want exactly that—little programmed, high-achieving robots. They just want tiny little worker bees who can memorize formulas, specifically in STEM fields because that's where the money and prestige are now, all while stripping away any sense of creativity or breadth. They'll just end up being the ones posting illiterate comments on Facebook with a disclaimer like, "don't mind my grammar." It's pathetic.

I guess you could say that... yeah.🐔
I suppose I should probably start by saying that when someone decides to drop a Quote like this into the middle of a discussion, it really changes the whole rhythm of the conversation, doesn't it? It’s funny, in a way, how a single highlighted passage can just sort of hang there, waiting for someone to make sense of it, though I guess I’m not entirely sure if that was the intention here. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. It feels a bit like when you're walking through a quiet park in Seattle and you suddenly stumble upon a sign that's been partially weathered away—you know it's meant to convey something important, but you find yourself wondering about the context of the person who put it there in the first place. Anyway, I'll try to wrap my head around what's being suggested, even if it takes me a moment to get there.

It’s a bit of a funny thing, really, how people constantly call for education reform—specifically this big push to move away from rote memorization—yet when you actually look at what parents want, it seems like they're just asking for something else entirely. I guess there's this underlying desire to essentially raise little programmed little drones, tiny little worker bees who can churn through formulas, especially in STEM fields since that's where all the money and prestige seem to be hiding these days. It's almost as if they want the technical proficiency without any of the actual creativity or breadth of thought, which is a bit of a strange trade-off, I suppose. They want the results, but without the substance, leading to a future full of people posting illiterate nonsense on Facebook while adding those little disclaimers like, "don't mind my grammar, I'm just on social media." It’s honestly kind of sad to think about.

I honestly feel such a sense of relief whenever someone who isn't part of the establishment notices something like this, because, I suppose, they can't really be accused of being biased or having some hidden agenda.👍👍

I’ve been sitting here reading through this whole thread, and I have to say, it’s kind of hilarious to me how some people are out here embarrassing themselves with such narrow-minded views. They seem to genuinely believe they’re some sort of high-society intellectuals just because they’ve "read a lot of books," which I guess is their way of claiming superiority, though it honestly just comes across as rather pretentious.🤦
I suppose I’m also sitting here, somewhat impatiently, rooting for the homeschooling movement, if only to see where all those potential outsiders might end up one day.🤣

nimblelynx7 said:No, he's a teacher. He’s automatically immune to being called an "educated idiot." To him, he's some untouchable authority figure because everyone else is just a clueless amateur.

The title of "educated idiot" is reserved for the engineers and technicians—the ones actually responsible for ensuring the teacher even has a computer or electricity at home and school. But who cares? It's the 21st century. None of that matters to him because he couldn't tell you the color of Anna Karenina's dress, he hasn't a clue what the GDP of Uzbekistan is, and he knows nothing about who died at Thermopylae.

People just want their kids to have practical, useful knowledge for daily life, not to be participants in a wild goose chase. Everything else is just hypocrisy and passing the buck. Those illiterate posts happen after 11 to 17 years of schooling, whether they are on Facebook or not.

So what, we should just bring back Home Ec, then throw in carpentry, masonry, drywalling, auto mechanics, and construction? I guess those would be way more "useful" for daily life than physics, biology, English, art, music, or history. 🤔

Generally speaking, could you tell me which specific elementary school subjects actually teach these "useful" skills, and what those skills even are? Or maybe those subjects just don't exist in the current curriculum?

Edit: urbantinker8, I honestly admire anyone who hasn't lost all hope if they truly believe this. It’s kind of depressing to read, frankly. Some discussions on this sub are just as infuriating as reading the comments on the New York Times (and the NYT really gets under my skin 😁). It’s just this mindset that keeps America from ever moving past a backwards mentality. First, parents start panicking about physics, math, and computer science, and now everyone wants their kid to be a tiny robot technician, a little coder, or a junior engineer—as if we’re just trying to fill labor shortages, yay. But then we act like hicks and primitives by ignoring an entire spectrum of other knowledge, labeling it useless, outdated, or stupid. We ignore the fact that kids need to learn how to think. How to turn thoughts into sentences. We forget that you can't just feed a kid formulas and a mountain of math problems and expect them to become a mathematician. We overlook the fact that besides memorizing data—which isn't useless, obviously—other subjects teach kids how to think, connect dots, express themselves, argue, and explain. We forget that a kid might not care about STEM at all and might actually want to be a professor, a musician, a dancer, or a preschool teacher. We're talking about third graders here, hey. And this guy is acting all high and mighty about raising a little irac when his kid probably doesn't even know how to wipe themselves properly and has no clue where their life is even headed.

In my first year of college, we were part of an experimental group that switched entirely to multiple-choice exams because oral exams were supposedly too subjective—even though essay questions are just as subjective. I studied law. Just imagine the mind behind a system where a future lawyer spends a whole year saying absolutely nothing to a professor and just circles bubbles next to A, B, C, or D. I guess that's what it takes so fools won't complain about professors being biased, or how some "special snowflake" wrote one thing when they meant another. 😢

I honestly don't get this obsession with the idea that only "directly applicable" knowledge actually holds any value.

Think about it—if someone from a place like Iraq decides to head over to the States to pursue a degree, they might just discover that the habit of reading high-quality literature (with actual comprehension, obviously) is incredibly useful when tackling things like the SAT, ACT, or LSAT. And let's be real, scoring well on those exams is a massive advantage when you're trying to get into a top-tier university—the kind that hands you a diploma which actually makes finding a solid career much easier down the road.

Reading is one of those fundamental building blocks, and whether people want to admit it or not, literature plays a huge role in that process...

Atticus 👍

Reading good books does wonders for learning a language—whether it's a second one or even just improving your own. 😍

Maria Gray3 said:So what, we should just bring back Home Ec, then throw in carpentry, masonry, drywalling, auto mechanics, and construction? I guess those would be way more "useful" for daily life than physics, biology, English, art, music, or history. 🤔

Generally speaking, could you tell me which specific elementary school subjects actually teach these "useful" skills, and what those skills even are? Or maybe those subjects just don't exist in the current curriculum?

Edit: urbantinker8, I honestly admire anyone who hasn't lost all hope if they truly believe this. It’s kind of depressing to read, frankly. Some discussions on this sub are just as infuriating as reading the comments on the New York Times (and the NYT really gets under my skin 😁). It’s just this mindset that keeps America from ever moving past a backwards mentality. First, parents start panicking about physics, math, and computer science, and now everyone wants their kid to be a tiny robot technician, a little coder, or a junior engineer—as if we’re just trying to fill labor shortages, yay. But then we act like hicks and primitives by ignoring an entire spectrum of other knowledge, labeling it useless, outdated, or stupid. We ignore the fact that kids need to learn how to think. How to turn thoughts into sentences. We forget that you can't just feed a kid formulas and a mountain of math problems and expect them to become a mathematician. We overlook the fact that besides memorizing data—which isn't useless, obviously—other subjects teach kids how to think, connect dots, express themselves, argue, and explain. We forget that a kid might not care about STEM at all and might actually want to be a professor, a musician, a dancer, or a preschool teacher. We're talking about third graders here, hey. And this guy is acting all high and mighty about raising a little irac when his kid probably doesn't even know how to wipe themselves properly and has no clue where their life is even headed.

In my first year of college, we were part of an experimental group that switched entirely to multiple-choice exams because oral exams were supposedly too subjective—even though essay questions are just as subjective. I studied law. Just imagine the mind behind a system where a future lawyer spends a whole year saying absolutely nothing to a professor and just circles bubbles next to A, B, C, or D. I guess that's what it takes so fools won't complain about professors being biased, or how some "special snowflake" wrote one thing when they meant another. 😢

Someone please help me, thank Jesus!🙏

I just put together one of those tests myself. Circle this. Underline that. Color this in. And there's always that one question that asks you to "cross out the incorrect answer," which acts like a total trap because most people end up circling the right one instead of crossing out the wrong one, even though it's clearly stated. Then you've got your standard Yes or No section.

I don't need some entitled brat or even John Doe wasting my time or testing my nerves by questioning whether I'm being objective. Everything is on paper. It's black and white. If anyone has an issue, they can take it up with the Dean's office.

Maria Gray3 said:Atticus 👍

Reading good books does wonders for learning a language—whether it's a second one or even just improving your own. 😍

That is so true. 👍

Speaking specifically about the LSAT—which is still pretty fresh in my mind since I took it most recently—one major component is the reading comprehension section. From what I learned while studying (and from knowing people who have built entire careers out of LSAT prep), this is arguably the hardest area to actually improve... if you want to see that score jump significantly between your first diagnostic test and the actual exam day.

Why is that? Because, generally speaking, only those who are already habitual readers—people used to diving into substantive stuff—can really nail that section. And let's face it, a reading habit is something you build over a lifetime, not something you can cram into a few months of intense study.

Prep instructors often give their clients long reading lists or suggest devouring > and similar publications on a daily basis... but, as they themselves will admit, that doesn't do much good for someone who simply hasn't spent much time reading throughout their life.

I believe the American education system faces plenty of hurdles, but I'm certain an emphasis on reading and literature isn't one of them.

I also find myself sympathizing with teachers who get criticized for demanding that students read. Personally, I am so grateful to all my American English professors. Whether they were putting up with my messy handwriting or actually teaching me something meaningful... they made a difference. 😁

wanderingbadger44 said:Someone please help me, thank Jesus!🙏

I just put together one of those tests myself. Circle this. Underline that. Color this in. And there's always that one question that asks you to "cross out the incorrect answer," which acts like a total trap because most people end up circling the right one instead of crossing out the wrong one, even though it's clearly stated. Then you've got your standard Yes or No section.

I don't need some entitled brat or even John Doe wasting my time or testing my nerves by questioning whether I'm being objective. Everything is on paper. It's black and white. If anyone has an issue, they can take it up with the Dean's office.

A little bit of objectivity never killed anyone.

boldraven3 said:I honestly don't get this obsession with the idea that only "directly applicable" knowledge actually holds any value.

Think about it—if someone from a place like Iraq decides to head over to the States to pursue a degree, they might just discover that the habit of reading high-quality literature (with actual comprehension, obviously) is incredibly useful when tackling things like the SAT, ACT, or LSAT. And let's be real, scoring well on those exams is a massive advantage when you're trying to get into a top-tier university—the kind that hands you a diploma which actually makes finding a solid career much easier down the road.

Reading is one of those fundamental building blocks, and whether people want to admit it or not, literature plays a huge role in that process...

No. You don't get any real value out of this by just memorizing facts from the top 17 global subjects without actually understanding them—just jumping from one topic to the next because some sacred, rigid school curriculum tells you to.

If Jack ever decides to pack his bags and head to the States for school, he might realize that actually reading quality literature—with actual comprehension, mind you—is incredibly useful when sitting for the SAT, ACT, or LSAT. Crushing those exams is vital if you want to get into a decent university, which is the only way to land a degree that actually leads to a real career.

I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.

nimblelynx7 said:A little bit of objectivity never killed anyone.

No. You don't get any real value out of this by just memorizing facts from the top 17 global subjects without actually understanding them—just jumping from one topic to the next because some sacred, rigid school curriculum tells you to.

If Jack ever decides to pack his bags and head to the States for school, he might realize that actually reading quality literature—with actual comprehension, mind you—is incredibly useful when sitting for the SAT, ACT, or LSAT. Crushing those exams is vital if you want to get into a decent university, which is the only way to land a degree that actually leads to a real career.

I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.

I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.

I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.
I’m not quite following your logic here. The LSAT doesn't even test math. Now, the SAT does have a math section, but I wasn't actually referring to that—I was focused on the verbal side, where reading comprehension is the real driver. (There’s also a pretty strong correlation between the LSAT and the verbal portion of the SAT). Math is its own thing, though I suppose being able to read well helps you grasp what the question is asking in the first place.

I’m not sure what you mean by "laughable," though. For instance, what kind of score did you pull on the SAT verbal section? 🍿

Also, I have no idea how Uzbekistan's GDP relates to these exams, especially since none of them are testing "dry facts." What they actually do is present you with a few passages—which make up part of the overall SAT or LSAT verbal score—and then you have to answer specific questions based on those texts within your allotted time... usually about 35 minutes for the "reading comprehension" chunk. So, if you're a good reader, you're golden, but if not... well...

nimblelynx7 said:A little bit of objectivity never killed anyone.

No. You don't get any real value out of this by just memorizing facts from the top 17 global subjects without actually understanding them—just jumping from one topic to the next because some sacred, rigid school curriculum tells you to.

If Jack ever decides to pack his bags and head to the States for school, he might realize that actually reading quality literature—with actual comprehension, mind you—is incredibly useful when sitting for the SAT, ACT, or LSAT. Crushing those exams is vital if you want to get into a decent university, which is the only way to land a degree that actually leads to a real career.

I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.

I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.

I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how you even begin a conversation with someone who truly believes that picking one out of four multiple-choice options is some kind of gold standard for measuring actual skill or expertise—and I don't even mean the tricky questions, just the basic ones.

I guess I'm just at a loss.

It’s just wonderful how everyone seems so incredibly full of all this talk about logic and critical thinking being something schools "stifle rather than nurture."🤣🤣

I mean, if you actually took the time, dear parents, to continuously foster those skills at home starting from when they're little, there wouldn't be any subject out there capable of "killing" them.😉
The way people view reading to their kids these days is, unfortunately, just as dismissive as their attitude toward required reading assignments, and honestly, it feels pretty futile to argue for the value of Judith’s perspective to someone who hasn't even sat down to read a single story by Jesse.

And by the way, even though I was already told once that it’s just some niche etymology thing, I just can't help feeling a bit of secondhand embarrassment seeing such an illiterate username based on some floral diminutive.🙂

Larry Walker24 said:Did Judith or some death metal song help anyone actually grasp reality? 🤦🤦

What does media literacy have to do with reading a book?

Moving abroad is your own choice, it's got nothing to do with what you read in class.

bug, analyzing what you read is what helps you wrap your head around reality by building the habit of critical and analytical thinking regarding any given text, not just one specific book, like I already said. Your cognitive ability is clearly so limited that you missed the point: people who vote for the Republican Party in the Midwest (which basically gutted the region) and then cry about having no jobs before fleeing to Ireland lack the basic logic to connect "Republican Party = ruin," much like how you're rambling here about moving abroad being unrelated to reading. 🤣

Your cognitive ability regarding what you read is zero, which is pretty obvious from your line of work. But hey, don't bother reading anything; reading is clearly for idiots.

wiredfalcon2 said:bug, analyzing what you read is what helps you wrap your head around reality by building the habit of critical and analytical thinking regarding any given text, not just one specific book, like I already said. Your cognitive ability is clearly so limited that you missed the point: people who vote for the Republican Party in the Midwest (which basically gutted the region) and then cry about having no jobs before fleeing to Ireland lack the basic logic to connect "Republican Party = ruin," much like how you're rambling here about moving abroad being unrelated to reading. 🤣

Your cognitive ability regarding what you read is zero, which is pretty obvious from your line of work. But hey, don't bother reading anything; reading is clearly for idiots.

That's right, your logic is flawless, you know everything, you're basically the new Einstein 👍

Quincy:

I can't work with that. Give me some actual content to rewrite. silentsurfer2 says: It’s honestly great whenever someone outside the establishment spots something like this. Since they aren't part of the machine, nobody can pull the "you're just biased" card on them.👍👍

wanderingbadger44 said:Someone please help me, thank Jesus!🙏

I just put together one of those tests myself. Circle this. Underline that. Color this in. And there's always that one question that asks you to "cross out the incorrect answer," which acts like a total trap because most people end up circling the right one instead of crossing out the wrong one, even though it's clearly stated. Then you've got your standard Yes or No section.

I don't need some entitled brat or even John Doe wasting my time or testing my nerves by questioning whether I'm being objective. Everything is on paper. It's black and white. If anyone has an issue, they can take it up with the Dean's office.

There’s more of us lurking here. We’re just watching the thread unfold because everything that needed to be said has already been laid out perfectly. 👍

If there’s any silver lining for those of us without kids—the ones who won't be dealing with kindergarten drop-offs for at least another decade—it’s this: the era of helicopter parents and their precious little snowflakes is finally hitting a wall. Everyone’s fed up with them. Honestly, I’m starting to think we’re finally heading back toward a generation of actual, functional parents. Fingers crossed. 🙂

wanderingbadger44 said:I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.

I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how you even begin a conversation with someone who truly believes that picking one out of four multiple-choice options is some kind of gold standard for measuring actual skill or expertise—and I don't even mean the tricky questions, just the basic ones.

I guess I'm just at a loss.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how you even begin a conversation with someone who truly believes that picking one out of four multiple-choice options is some kind of gold standard for measuring actual skill or expertise—and I don't even mean the tricky questions, just the basic ones.

I guess I'm just at a loss.
This just reminded me of something.
The other day, at one of those high-end Ivy League universities, a professor was actually asked to dumb down his exams.
Apparently, because their students aren't exactly cut out for the heavy lifting, the faculty doesn't want to "depress" them.
They literally asked this guy to make the test easier.
Like, turn it into a basic multiple-choice thing.

Richard Perez3 said:I honestly can't wrap my head around how you even begin a conversation with someone who truly believes that picking one out of four multiple-choice options is some kind of gold standard for measuring actual skill or expertise—and I don't even mean the tricky questions, just the basic ones.

I guess I'm just at a loss.

This just reminded me of something.
The other day, at one of those high-end Ivy League universities, a professor was actually asked to dumb down his exams.
Apparently, because their students aren't exactly cut out for the heavy lifting, the faculty doesn't want to "depress" them.
They literally asked this guy to make the test easier.
Like, turn it into a basic multiple-choice thing.
🤦🤦
Honestly, I find myself caught between laughter and pure despair every single time a close friend of mine—who happens to be a doctor teaching at a top-tier medical school—tells me his stories. He mentions how even during the third and fourth years, students show up to exams accompanied by their mothers! And it isn't just once, either; a mother will storm into his office after her child fails, practically shouting, "But I quizzed them on everything at home, and they knew all the answers!" 🙂

silentsurfer2 said:Quincy:

I can't work with that. Give me some actual content to rewrite. silentsurfer2 says: It’s honestly great whenever someone outside the establishment spots something like this. Since they aren't part of the machine, nobody can pull the "you're just biased" card on them.👍👍

There’s more of us lurking here. We’re just watching the thread unfold because everything that needed to be said has already been laid out perfectly. 👍

If there’s any silver lining for those of us without kids—the ones who won't be dealing with kindergarten drop-offs for at least another decade—it’s this: the era of helicopter parents and their precious little snowflakes is finally hitting a wall. Everyone’s fed up with them. Honestly, I’m starting to think we’re finally heading back toward a generation of actual, functional parents. Fingers crossed. 🙂

Well, I certainly hope so too.🙂
Because things have drifted into such an absurd territory right now that I find myself feeling a sort of profound secondhand embarrassment while listening to the "arguments" some parents are making about absolutely everything.🤦🤦

Richard Perez3 said:I honestly can't wrap my head around how you even begin a conversation with someone who truly believes that picking one out of four multiple-choice options is some kind of gold standard for measuring actual skill or expertise—and I don't even mean the tricky questions, just the basic ones.

I guess I'm just at a loss.

This just reminded me of something.
The other day, at one of those high-end Ivy League universities, a professor was actually asked to dumb down his exams.
Apparently, because their students aren't exactly cut out for the heavy lifting, the faculty doesn't want to "depress" them.
They literally asked this guy to make the test easier.
Like, turn it into a basic multiple-choice thing.
🤣🤣
I have never given a multiple-choice test in my life, nor do I ever intend to, so people can say whatever they want about me.

wanderingbadger44 said:I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.

I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how you even begin a conversation with someone who truly believes that picking one out of four multiple-choice options is some kind of gold standard for measuring actual skill or expertise—and I don't even mean the tricky questions, just the basic ones.

I guess I'm just at a loss.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how you even begin a conversation with someone who truly believes that picking one out of four multiple-choice options is some kind of gold standard for measuring actual skill or expertise—and I don't even mean the tricky questions, just the basic ones.

I guess I'm just at a loss.
And how do you deal with people who think they're the only geniuses in the room while everyone else is just incompetent?

If the questions are actually drafted well, they'll require real subject matter expertise to get the right answer.

... or just a whole lot of luck with all those little hiccups and mishaps. ☕