All-day school schedules

Anthony Stewart5 said:Fifth graders usually wrap up their school day by 1:00 PM at the latest. For instance, back when I was working, I wouldn't finish until 5:00 PM and wouldn't walk through my own front door until 5:30 PM.

That specific window of time... what are your children actually doing during those hours? Most music lessons and organized sports tend to be scheduled for the late afternoon. In my case, my child would simply stay home, though I cannot speak to the routines of others.

They usually stick around after school to play or chat, head over to a friend's house to hang out or work on projects, eat lunch, do homework, relax, read, walk the dog, or feed the cats and fish....

shadowtiger0 said:Personally? I absolutely loathe doing homework with my kids. And mind you, I’m a teacher—school has basically been my entire life. Not to mention how poorly designed most of these assignments are; they're often so convoluted that a child can't possibly grasp them. It’s glaringly obvious that these textbooks were written by some PhD academic who hasn't spent a single day actually working in a real American classroom.

I’m right there with you—I hate doing homework with my kids.
And guess what? I don't do it. He does it himself. Whatever happens, happens. If he gets seriously stuck, he might come to me, but that's happening less and less lately because my first three responses are always the same: "Read the question again." Once he’s read it for the fourth time and still doesn't get it, then—and only then—am I willing to step in. Usually, though, he doesn't even bother coming back until he's read it four times, and since he isn't slow and has a decent grasp of basic American math, he usually realizes what he missed by the third reading.

The only time I really jump in is if they get one of those research projects—just enough to help him refine his search terms so we aren't spinning our wheels, you know? He does the actual searching, reads the results, and interprets everything on his own. Or, if they're using some new app and he needs to figure out how to navigate the interface.

For anything else? Well, I did my time. Between twelve years as a student and my morning sessions as a teacher today, I feel like I've paid my dues. I’m not about to bring the whole school experience home with me.😉

@Mad Hatter I don't have kids myself, but I frequently hear stories from a colleague of mine who does—she’s got one in second grade and another in fifth. She spends her entire afternoon hovering over them, drilling in homework and lessons. On top of that, there's this constant stream of instructions being blasted out by their teacher through various group chats. It makes me wonder: how is a child ever supposed to develop any sense of independence when you're constantly spoon-feeding them every single piece of information? 🕺

shadowtiger0 said:Whatever—the guy has a doctorate. We aren't educators. That's just the reality of it.

As for those jokes about our department? Sure, they exist. They exist for every major out there. But let's be real—we aren't kids anymore; we all know which programs are grueling and exactly what kind of people enroll in them.

So he’s a doctor. How does that make him better than you?

Maybe he’s a theorist who couldn't even perform a basic stitch if his life depended on it. Maybe he’s just some corrupt hack. Or maybe he’s a complete fraud who spent his career breeding offspring only to land a cushy seat at the National Academy of Sciences, churning out useless papers on our dime while we do the actual work (our editorial staff knows exactly who I mean). Perhaps he’d sell his Hippocratic Oath for five hundred bucks. Maybe he learned anatomy via YouTube. Or maybe he’s just completely incompetent.

My old man wasn't anything special, and honestly, he gave me a hard time my whole life. But even so? He was still a better human being than 80 percent of doctors out there, and far more capable of teaching practical skills than any MD I've ever met.

We don't all belong to that inner circle of "distinguished" doctors. There's a huge crowd of them in Congress, so clearly they're geniuses.

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.

nimblelynx7 said: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?

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.

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.

One might be genuinely surprised by the sheer scale of socialization occurring today, particularly in this pervasive era of mobile devices where even children in preschool seem to already possess their own. Is it not remarkable how early these digital connections begin to shape the foundational experiences of our youth?

You are certainly entitled to your own perspective, and since this is a forum, there is no reason to deny anyone that right; however, should we not also allow space for the opposing view? My son was fortunate enough to be taught by two truly wonderful teachers whom he remembers fondly even to this day, one of whom managed to instill in him a genuine passion for mathematics—an outcome that proved to be an absolute godsend for his future. It was that single spark of inspiration that ultimately shaped the entire trajectory of his education.

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.

mistyfalcon3 said:@Mad Hatter I don't have kids myself, but I frequently hear stories from a colleague of mine who does—she’s got one in second grade and another in fifth. She spends her entire afternoon hovering over them, drilling in homework and lessons. On top of that, there's this constant stream of instructions being blasted out by their teacher through various group chats. It makes me wonder: how is a child ever supposed to develop any sense of independence when you're constantly spoon-feeding them every single piece of information? 🕺

My oldest is in fifth grade. I've been using this specific approach for five years now.

The real issue pops up when a kid just doesn't have the bandwidth to hit those high marks a parent has envisioned for them.
So then, the parent starts sitting down with them, doing the homework alongside them... it reminds me of my sister-in-law. She comes home from work and immediately sits down to study with her son—she’ll read his history textbook out loud and retell the stories to him, then he repeats it back to her, and they do that loop five times until it's memorized. Then they move on to science: she dictates the answers while he just writes them down. Meanwhile, she’s doing the exact same thing with her niece for English and math, so they just swap roles.
I would honestly 🙂 lose my mind
before turning my life into a constant cycle of supervised studying. If you just don't have the capacity to be a straight-A student, honey, that's okay. There are plenty of great trade jobs out there where people care more about how skilled or strong your hands are rather than how much information you can cram into your memory. You'd probably be way happier in a vocational program than being pushed into some intense four-year preparatory academy where I'd have to spend every waking minute studying right alongside you.

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.

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:So he’s a doctor. How does that make him better than you?

Maybe he’s a theorist who couldn't even perform a basic stitch if his life depended on it. Maybe he’s just some corrupt hack. Or maybe he’s a complete fraud who spent his career breeding offspring only to land a cushy seat at the National Academy of Sciences, churning out useless papers on our dime while we do the actual work (our editorial staff knows exactly who I mean). Perhaps he’d sell his Hippocratic Oath for five hundred bucks. Maybe he learned anatomy via YouTube. Or maybe he’s just completely incompetent.

My old man wasn't anything special, and honestly, he gave me a hard time my whole life. But even so? He was still a better human being than 80 percent of doctors out there, and far more capable of teaching practical skills than any MD I've ever met.

We don't all belong to that inner circle of "distinguished" doctors. There's a huge crowd of them in Congress, so clearly they're geniuses.

There's a bit of everything, sure. I'll be the first to admit that an epidemiologist shouldn't be pulling the same paycheck as a surgeon—not that I even knew about this mess until now...—but they do.

That said, in most cases, doctors were top-tier students with incredible memories and a hell of a work ethic. On the day they decided to take on a grueling specialty right after graduation and grind away at it for years—believe me, that makes a massive difference compared to what we do.

I breezed through my college years... sort of. Some harder classes gave me a bit of trouble, but hey, I made it. If you saw the sheer volume of studying a doctor has to do, followed by their actual workload—you wouldn't say that.

Let me give you an example to illustrate: Pat. One of my buddies from the crew is getting married. We didn't have one of our resident doctors on duty at the ER that night. He rolls into the OR around 11 PM. Usually, he's this high-energy, hilarious guy—a textbook extrovert. This time, he's silent, eyes glued to the floor. We, being our usual "cheerful" selves, try to crack a few jokes to get him going. Finally, he snaps: "Guys, seriously, stop messing around, I just had a patient die on the table..."

Can you even imagine the looks on our faces? Now, imagine seeing that every single month for the rest of your life, while watching family members whine about every little thing while these guys just stay silent, swallow it, and push forward.

The medical professionals I know are all on the front lines actually working. As for those ones lounging in comfy office chairs? Not so much.

I'm not saying our job sucks (because it doesn't!), but it isn't like theirs. Not even close.

Nah, the way we do things, kids go to school where the whole point is getting them ready for college, and then they head off to university looking for specialized knowledge that was never actually taught—because they were too busy in vocational schools designed specifically for training them for a specific trade. It’s just brilliant, really. Makes perfect sense if you don't think about it at all.

Anyway, you should really look into how they handle education over in places like France, Germany, or Switzerland—you know, those high-standard Western systems. Everywhere else, it’s standard practice to have vocational students spend a year or two catching up on core subjects so they can qualify for their high school equivalency exams or whatever the local term is. Here? We call this "great vertical mobility." Total joke.

John, in other countries, specialists are often restricted to technical colleges; if they want anything else, they have to retake exams or head back to school for extra training.

So, she wasn't talking about the high school graduation exams—that's what Mad meant. In America, our people can actually take them, which is a huge advantage and gives them a real shot at catching up. For instance, in my own field, I used to host free prep sessions, and about five percent of the group showed up. Out of those, three percent dropped out because the work was just too much for them—they’d rather be grabbing a beer at a local pub—while the other two percent absolutely crushed it.

nimblelynx7 said: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.

The local technical high schools follow nearly the same math curriculum as the specialized prep academies, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

Even the hospitality vocational schools cover the same English language requirements.

Admittedly, providing paths from vocational schools to universities is a concession left over from the old educational frameworks, but it makes sense; anywhere in the US, if you attend a school to become a legal secretary, you cannot simply enroll in a university degree program without passing certain prerequisite courses.

Some of the wealthiest nations have handled this with much more rigor. A friend of mine has a girlfriend who finished her vocational business training by age sixteen and spent the following two years in internships. In our system, those students move straight into economics programs. It seems that wealthy Switzerland has solved this issue through the most uncompromising method possible: rigorous selection beginning as early as preschool.

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.

Hold on, I didn't realize that—so there isn't any vertical mobility like we have back home?

From what I can gather, our academic gatekeepers basically play games with professional degrees—they just won't let you move up to a doctorate, though I've heard that's starting to shift lately—whereas abroad, the path is wide open. I actually know people personally who finished a five-year professional program here and headed straight for a PhD overseas, even though they wouldn't have stood a chance in the American system.

I wonder what you call people who obsess over those little crescent cookies... 😁

Switching gears to tech education—I honestly don't see why they pushed for computer science to start so early in elementary school. It would make much more sense if it were mandatory starting in middle school, from 5th through 8th grade.

It’s a disaster how little computer science is offered in high school. General studies or language academies probably only get one year of it.
Unless you enroll in a STEM academy or some specialized vocational school for electrical engineering or web design, you basically never touch a computer.

Wouldn't it have been smarter to make it mandatory for middle schoolers and then keep it as a core requirement throughout all four years of high school? ☕

shadowtiger0 said:Hold on, I didn't realize that—so there isn't any vertical mobility like we have back home?

From what I can gather, our academic gatekeepers basically play games with professional degrees—they just won't let you move up to a doctorate, though I've heard that's starting to shift lately—whereas abroad, the path is wide open. I actually know people personally who finished a five-year professional program here and headed straight for a PhD overseas, even though they wouldn't have stood a chance in the American system.

Of course there isn't a single standard, as earning a Master's or a PhD is an entirely different matter altogether, and universities themselves dictate their own specific prerequisites for admission?

Is it truly possible to simply walk away from a specialized vocational program and transition directly into higher education without any further preparation? One might wonder if such a leap is feasible, yet the reality suggests that a more structured approach is required.

What we are truly lacking is sufficient hands-on experience compared to our peers, which means that even after completing vocational training, students emerge with only a fragmented understanding of their craft; yet, isn't the entire purpose of such programs to ensure they are fully prepared to hit the ground running in the American workforce?

Is it even worth forcing a language academy kid into programming?

Sarah Hall53 said:Is it even worth forcing a language academy kid into programming?

It doesn't need to be coding in every single high school... It could just be tailored for general tracks—things like mastering MS Office, digital literacy, or navigating various apps. There is plenty to cover without needing to write code...