Urban charter school has 100% graduation in first class

[Spoonist]

There is no magical reason why elementary/middle/high school needs to have some mollycoddling "Everyone must always pass, can't fail kids" approach in effect.

IIRC was not the reason in Finland (like the rest of scandinavia) that they thought it would put pressure on the schools to step up and help the troubled pupils as well. In contrast to the old system where it was easier for the schools/teacher to get away with being crap because they could blame the failure on the pupil?

Unfortunately both systems have drawbacks. It would be nice to have something which got both effects but without the downside.

[Phantasee]

What a waste of resources. The teacher who can teach Math 30 can teach Math 33 just fine, why duplicate resources just because some nerds get picked on? I mean, you'd need duplication in teachers, buildings, everything really.

Eh? The same teacher taught AP Calc, regular Calc, Applied Math, and the odd section of Pre-Calc. We also only had the one building. There was only one section each of the Calc classes, and two of Applied Math.

I was referring to the alternative proposed here where a certain segment of the student population gets sent to a different school because some of the nerds got picked on in high school and would prefer to be segregated from the "troublemakers". The way it's done now is more a efficient use of resources.

It's not like the retarded kids are going to be in the higher level classes anyway.

Edi is definitely correct: failing needs to come back in style.

[[R_H]]

What a waste of resources. The teacher who can teach Math 30 can teach Math 33 just fine, why duplicate resources just because some nerds get picked on? I mean, you'd need duplication in teachers, buildings, everything really.

Eh? The same teacher taught AP Calc, regular Calc, Applied Math, and the odd section of Pre-Calc. We also only had the one building. There was only one section each of the Calc classes, and two of Applied Math.

I was referring to the alternative proposed here where a certain segment of the student population gets sent to a different school because some of the nerds got picked on in high school and would prefer to be segregated from the "troublemakers". The way it's done now is more a efficient use of resources.

It's not like the retarded kids are going to be in the higher level classes anyway.

Edi is definitely correct: failing needs to come back in style.

Exactly. In highschool the only contact I had with the idiots was during gym class, and if they caused disruption, it's not like they negatively impacted my learning.

[Thanas]

To be fair, the German system allows for course changing after you complete the first part of your general education, but have not yet reached higher education.

Actually, to my knowledge, it allows course changing after every year. Though that might vary by individual states.

[Thanas]

I was referring to the alternative proposed here where a certain segment of the student population gets sent to a different school because some of the nerds got picked on in high school and would prefer to be segregated from the "troublemakers". The way it's done now is more a efficient use of resources.

That depends on the size of the schools, don't you think?

[Phantasee]

I don't know, I only have experience with Edmonton Public School Board schools. Here, students can go to any high school they want within the entire district, which encompasses the city. All the schools are roughly the same size (huge), with capacity ranging from 1500-3500. My own high school had 1600+ students.

I have a cousin in private school, although I hesitate to even call it a school. Everyone has to sit through every level of math because they don't have the student population to support separate classes at each level. IIRC the province provides funding for a class if it has 15 students at a minimum, and they have 25 kids in his grade. Even if it was a 50/50 split they wouldn't have enough students for either class.

This isn't an exemplary institution, btw. There's only a couple private schools here worthy of the prestige associated with them, and those tend to teach a year ahead.

[Bakustra]

In fact, it has an even greater chance of creating a self-perpetuating, near-permanent overclass.

How does middle professional technical education create any sort of "overclass"? It's the system used in Germany and it works quite well. It also worked quite good in Russia (until middle prof. schools collapsed due to overall industrial collapse since there was nowhere to put the educated workers to).

The system being proposed (or rather, one of them; the original) would create an underclass/overclass because it would consist of 5% of the student populace, not the far larger percentages that say, Germany has with its Hauptschule (25% in 2003/2004) and Gimnasium (40% in 2003/2004). The other proposed system seems to be a tiered system like what German has, one which separates students more reasonably than skimming off the top and bottom 5%. That is one that I have fewer problems with, though I question the value of having three tiers, but I'll explain why below.

Here's a historical example: Imperial China's civil service examination did not make its society significantly more meritocratic, because people with money were the ones who could educate their children on the exam, and those children could also buy seats in study courses and practice together with other educated individuals.

However, you tie education to money, which is absolutely irrelevant for noncommercial universal education. The universal education system of Germany or the USSR would be meritocratic, and yet it had tiers - school, middle prof, and higher.

But one criticism against the German system has been that it produces a situation where the highly-educated individuals' children end up in the top tier, and the children of people educated in the bottom tier have a higher probability of ending up in the bottom tier. This is all well and natural if you subscribe to Social Darwinism, but neither of us do as far as I am aware. This is less of a problem in Germany, particularly since the jobs that are available with a Hauptschule education have become fewer and so the correlation at the bottom has weakened, but within the proposed system, these correlations would most likely be stronger, because the tiers are so small and the bottom tier intentionally populated with people hostile to education. That is why I am talking about the possibility of creating a permanent underclass and/or overclass; because the tiers are so small.

I will note that Formless specifically stated that high school classes would be replaced in trade schools, but then again, you seem to be halfway to the idea that reform is necessary in primary education before moving on to secondary.

To be fair, the German system allows for course changing after you complete the first part of your general education, but have not yet reached higher education.

And this is why I have avoided directly criticizing the German system. Thank you.

What I mean is that everybody ideally have a basic understanding of biology, chemistry, and physics. That is functionally identical to what you proposed.

That does require general education to be good, but it does not require everyone to take specific higher education course.

Ah, but Formless' modest proposal as he initially explained it to me called for eliminating general education classes for his proposed bottom tier.

Now, I'm not sure what is the reason for your debate. A three tiered and a two tiered education system both have their merits, and are employed successfully in nations across the world. In case education is public (i.e. independent of monetary resources), universal, and strong, neither system would create any sort of "permanent overclass" or whatnot.

My support of a two-tiered system is because I don't see any reason for further granularity beyond skilled workers and university-educated workers. It is essentially opinion, and I do believe that the system would be fairly workable, but I take issue with the proposed system for the reasons I elaborated on above.

[Simon_Jester]

You misunderstand. By channeling them through the vocational schooling, they get to learn a trade and have useful skills they can directly apply to working life instead of spending three years trying to learn stuff they have no interest in. That's the whole point of the divergence of schooling systems after grade 9.

All right, I suppose, as long as the vocational schools aren't just a dumping ground. And while everyone can assure me that they wouldn't, I'm still a bit suspicious because of the rhetoric I'm hearing. When people are shouting about how this is the school for the uneducated louts... I think it's reasonable to question whether they're going to show due commitment to educating those louts.

My impression is that empirically, students do NOT learn in a system that gives up on them, especially if they were problem children to begin with. That's what worries me, even knowing that there are systems which can block off the bottom 10% or 20% of students in vocational schools without giving up on them.

If trade school students in Europe have the same basic attitude towards science as high school students in America who don't go on to college and don't learn any science to speak of... would instituting a trade school-like system in the US and booting the low-end students out of the system actually have any effect on their attitude?

Probably yes, because they would get to learn useful hands-on stuff and trade skills from 15 or 16 upwards instead of wasting the time being bored and disrupting everyone else. These people don't need to learn any advanced science stuff and often they would not be capable of doing it. Now, if someone does go through the trade school route, what would prevent them from trying for university later on if they actually go the spark to do so later on?

It would affect how much they actually learned, but would it affect their attitude towards science? I mean, if a European vocational school graduate is just as likely to be an ignorant anti-intellectual moron as a low-end American high school graduate... the vocational school didn't change anything in that respect.

It improves their job readiness, which is more important. But it wouldn't be a cure for "those damn idiots don't respect science!"

I know: if I agree it does good in a more important area, why do I mention it not doing good in a less important area? Because I don't like it when a solution is presented as a panacea, and for no other reason.

It's all in the details on how you set the dual path system up.

I'd expect it to be. Most systems fail horribly when implemented in some ways and succeed brilliantly when implemented in others; it's always in the details. It's just that "we need to segregate the idiots somewhere remote where they won't distract the people with brains!" seems like a bad starting point to me, because it's dismissing the vocational students before you even set up the school. That encourages entirely the wrong attitude towards the students, if you actually want them to learn.

Highschool may be mandatory, but failing kids must come back in vogue. Fail a subject, you have to do summer work or you resit the entire year. Fail two subjects, you automatically resit the entire year. Repeat until the kid either finishes high school or turns 18, at which point he/she can fuck off someplace to find work or whatever.

Back when I was in grade 9, we had three people in my class who were a year ahead of me but failed bad enough to need to resit. No problem, they graduated that grade more or less fine the second time around and then went on to do whatever they are doing now.

There's a saying in Finnish that doesn't translate well to English with all the impact intact. It goes "Tulos tai ulos!" and means "Get results or get out!" and in this context out would mean resitting the year.

There is no magical reason why elementary/middle/high school needs to have some mollycoddling "Everyone must always pass, can't fail kids" approach in effect.

Fair enough. As long as you don't just ghettoize the bottom 5% or 10% of students in a way that cripples their future job prospects, making them ignorant and angry, and causing them to raise children who predictably end up in the bottom 5% or 10% of students... I'm happy. That's all I'm looking for here.

[Edi]

The system here has a forked path precisely because everyone can't be forced into the same mold. It works rather well, actually and the trade schools are certainly not lacking in applicants. Quite the opposite, there aren't enough places for everyone who wants in there and the situation is the same with universities and mid level colleges as well.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wow, another use of "life's not fair" to declare anything done to perpetuate divisions between social classes and create them anew is A-OK! I've never heard that one before.

When the fuck did I say anything about social classes, Worm? I was talking about stratification based upon ability, not inherited wealth. Where kids regardless of their income or social status have the chance to be what it is in them to be. You think everyone has the same IQ Numbnuts?

You want to talk to me about social classes motherfucker? My mom was a single parent after she divorced The Bible Tyrant. She worked as an accountant and raised a family of 4. We were not rich, not even middle class actually. Making ends meet was a constant struggle. You know where I am now? In a couple years I will have the PhD after my name. Probably before I hit 26 years old, and definitely before 27. I managed this despite, or rather, in spite of the K-12 education system. Trying to endure math classes where they sing little songs about log functions rather than actually teach you about log functions, trying to learn german in a class where morons disrupt class every 5 minutes... I could delineate a circle in that classroom where said cluster of morons basically sucked learning out of the room.

You appear to be assuming that it has to be the bottom five percent and that it's also because we can't deny the kids an education/we don't hold people back enough, depending on what you mean by "fail". What about the fact that the public high schools were intended to produce semi-literate assembly-line workers?

Source for that? They may have started out that way back in the Gilded Age, but that is not their purpose now. Their purpose, at least since the New Deal, has been to produce skilled laborers and with the launching of Sputnik the school system has tried to get kids interested in math and science. Back in that period though, they would hold kids back grades or fail them in classes if they were not up to snuff. Now I have to teach the kids who come out of that system and go to university. The grading is painful, lets just leave it there.

The rest of your post is filled with the same arguments over and over again, but I will note that Formless specifically stated that high school classes would be replaced in trade schools, but then again, you seem to be halfway to the idea that reform is necessary in primary education before moving on to secondary.

Halfway dumbass? I specifically stated it. Primary education in the US is a joke as well. I have students in university who read and write at a level I would expect from fifth graders. That is a problem with the primary schools.

When it comes to tone, you are utilizing interesting rhetoric about how people need to be "placed" in the appropriate track. What happened to meritocracy? Did that go out with the idea that massive divisions between the social classes were a bad thing?

Do you lack basic reading comprehension skills like my students do? When on earth did I toss out meritocracy? I never couched that placement as anything other than placement based on ability. The definition of a meritocracy.

You also seem to be presuming that by "scientific literacy" that I mean that everybody should be trained as a scientist. Well, crushing arrogance combined with defective literacy is one of the hallmarks of Internet debate, I suppose. What I mean is that everybody ideally have a basic understanding of biology, chemistry, and physics. That is functionally identical to what you proposed.

And I am saying that everyone needs that basic literacy, but certain high school students should get a lot more than that. Perhaps you should look elsewhere when you wish to accuse someone of defective literacy. Not everything in that post was a direct response to your arguments.

Well, don't you think that we should establish high schools to that standard, then?

Ideally we should have a three tiered system. Most students should go into the "Realschule", which prepares them for white collar jobs; middle management that sort of thing, with some vocational options as well (wood shop, metal shop etc).

The kids who are both good at and interested in pure academics should go into the Gymnasium

The other track, the Hauptschule type track (which does also include basic subjects), would be for those who are good at and interested into doing skilled labor (plumbing and the like).

These need not be identified as being the "top percent" or anything like that. It can be done with an aptitude test with two sections. One which measures the potential to go into academics, the other for skilled labor. How they score in each one, with their interests and desires taken into account, determines what track they go on. Those who score well in both sections will be allowed to flat out choose which track, or go into the Realschule until they decide. Score average in both? Realschule.

It is simple, and does not create a class system.

In any case, you seem to be falling into the schizophrenic argument again. Is the bottom 5% going to provide the totality of skilled tradesmen?

When on earth did I ever specify a percentage? You need to stop building your own strawmen and setting them on fire. See above for an explanation if you are capable of reading it.

Then why establish special schools just for them? Why not have a two-tiered system that splits between vocational-educated tradesmen and college-educated individuals, rather than a three-tiered one?

Because It may be desirable to have to classes of specialists and then the middle generalist school. See above for why. Also, see my example of a german Gesamptschule which combines all three tracks in one set of buildings.

Furthermore, there is a difference between college and highschool that interferes with being able to fail kids indiscriminately: highschool is mandatory.

Trying to educate children, and not failing them if they do not understand the material presented are mutually exclusive propositions.

To be fair, the German system allows for course changing after you complete the first part of your general education, but have not yet reached higher education.

Which should of course always be permitted. A kid who say, takes an electrician course and decides he wants to be an electrical engineer should be allowed to catch up on the math and science, and then apply into the academic track.

[Formless]

I see Bakustra never answered my question. What is so wrong about sending the lowest 5% to a trade school that isn't wrong about sending the top 5% to a charter school? Or hell, even the top 1%; the percentage doesn't matter. Why do you not rail against schools like the one in the OP, but seem incapable of talking about my and other people's proposals without scaremongering about RAR ARISTOCRACY YOU FUCKING FEUDALIST YOU. I want to see evidence that Aristocracy is the inevitable result of meritocracy. I want you to justify that classes are TEH ULITMATE EVUL even when there is room for social mobility. I want to see evidence that the reforms I propose will lead to a widening of social inequality despite the fact that the people we are talking about are likely to end up doing skilled labor anyway. I want to see these things now. I do not have to listen to your hyperventilating, scaremongering, slanderous bullshit, Little Jimmy. Not when others have chimed in to tell you that this system exists elsewhere and does NOT have the problems you attribute to it.

Edit: christ, you would think this little shit would realize that his concerns apply just as well to the grading system as to the two/three tiered school systems. What a tool.

[Simon_Jester]

The system here has a forked path precisely because everyone can't be forced into the same mold. It works rather well, actually and the trade schools are certainly not lacking in applicants. Quite the opposite, there aren't enough places for everyone who wants in there and the situation is the same with universities and mid level colleges as well.

As long as it works, it's fine; my concerns center more around how the system can be implemented when it's combined with a strong institutional bias against the kind of people who go to the trade schools. Which I assume it isn't, in Finland. Germany may be having a bit more of a problem with that from Thanas's comments; I don't know.

I see Bakustra never answered my question. What is so wrong about sending the lowest 5% to a trade school that isn't wrong about sending the top 5% to a charter school? Or hell, even the top 1%; the percentage doesn't matter. Why do you not rail against schools like the one in the OP, but seem incapable of talking about my and other people's proposals without scaremongering about RAR ARISTOCRACY YOU FUCKING FEUDALIST YOU. I want to see evidence that Aristocracy is the inevitable result of meritocracy. I want you to justify that classes are TEH ULITMATE EVUL even when there is room for social mobility. I want to see evidence that the reforms I propose will lead to a widening of social inequality despite the fact that the people we are talking about are likely to end up doing skilled labor anyway. I want to see these things now. I do not have to listen to your hyperventilating, scaremongering, slanderous bullshit, Little Jimmy. Not when others have chimed in to tell you that this system exists elsewhere and does NOT have the problems you attribute to it.

Edit: christ, you would think this little shit would realize that his concerns apply just as well to the grading system as to the two/three tiered school systems. What a tool.

Ah no, Formless, they don't. There's an asymmetry at work here, or at least the potential for one.

Well educated parents may be more likely to have well educated children, but there's a self-limiting factor built into the process, because the genetics that decides aptitude is kind of random: the love child of Albert Einstein and Marie Curie wouldn't necessarily be a genius in their own right. They could be (as Marie Curie's real daughters demonstrated), but they need not be.

So giving exceptionally good education to the most successful students doesn't create a self-perpetuating overclass, because the effect doesn't propagate from generation to generation very strongly.

But take the mirror image of that, and send the bottom 5% to a school built specifically to house them. IF you can find educators who are honestly committed to teaching these kids useful skills, and who won't treat them like useless idiots, then the school will work. But if not (and the contempt I'm hearing for this group doesn't make me confident), then this school becomes a repository for the stuff at the bottom of the barrel. The students will realize this, and will learn very little. And they will despise school, even more so than they would have anyway, because the system explicitly rejected them.

So now you have a bunch of ignorant adults who are convinced that school is worthless. That passes to their children. There is a very strong relation between the attitude of parents toward learning and the attitude that the children pick up toward learning. The next generation of children descended from those ignorant adults who went to moron school will grow up hearing "the normal high schools are overrated" or "moron school was good enough for me, it's good enough for my friends, why ain't it good enough for you?"

That is not a recipe for educated children in the next generation.

Now, again, this problem can be completely bypassed if the trade school system isn't treated as "moron school." This is how Europe does it. On the other hand, they also put more than the bottom 5% of the population through the schools, which leavens the genuine troublemaking idiots with people who are basically competent but at the low end of the performance range. AND (this is important), they don't treat the trade schools as schools for morons, a place that serves mainly to keep the troublemakers out of the way of the real students.

Which, to be blunt, is something I don't trust the kind of mindset I'm hearing here to do. I think if such a system were set up by the kind of people who are supporting it on this thread (not counting the Europeans who already have one), the trade schools would tend to get neglected because they're a dumping ground for bad students, rather than really being a school where people unsuited for academia learn a trade.

This has the potential to backfire if it isn't implemented carefully, for some of the same reasons that America's stupid policy of funding schools out of local property taxes does: it creates a quality gap between the schools rich children go to and the schools poor children go to, which makes social mobility across generations harder.

[Bakustra]

I see Bakustra never answered my question. What is so wrong about sending the lowest 5% to a trade school that isn't wrong about sending the top 5% to a charter school? Or hell, even the top 1%; the percentage doesn't matter. Why do you not rail against schools like the one in the OP, but seem incapable of talking about my and other people's proposals without scaremongering about RAR ARISTOCRACY YOU FUCKING FEUDALIST YOU. I want to see evidence that Aristocracy is the inevitable result of meritocracy. I want you to justify that classes are TEH ULITMATE EVUL even when there is room for social mobility. I want to see evidence that the reforms I propose will lead to a widening of social inequality despite the fact that the people we are talking about are likely to end up doing skilled labor anyway. I want to see these things now. I do not have to listen to your hyperventilating, scaremongering, slanderous bullshit, Little Jimmy. Not when others have chimed in to tell you that this system exists elsewhere and does NOT have the problems you attribute to it.

I addressed this fully in my post to Stas, but I do indeed have a problem with the idea of schools specifically for the top 5% or top 1% or other, tiny fractions, just as I have one with the idea of schools for the bottom 5%. Now, the problem is that by making a school specifically for people who don't care about education, you run a high risk of creating an inheritable condition, as their kids will grow up under those same conditions and likely adopt most of the attitudes of their parents. The same thing would happen with a school solely for the top 5%. Meanwhile, the actual systems in use in Germany and around the world don't use tiny little percentages like these. I'm not railing against the school in the OP because the topic of the thread had drifted from that before I joined. If you really must, I will fill every post of mine in this thread with generalized invective against the very concept of charter schools and magnet schools, but only if you are willing to take the fall if it's considered too spammy. Deal, Duke?

The rest of your post is pretty funny. I actually chuckled a little at some of the things you're saying. Unfortunately for you, they're not what you intended to be amusing, I'm sure. See, my little comments about you being an aristocrat wannabe, Duke, were insults. Gibery. Put-downs. Asking people to justify their flaming is only going to make you a laughingstock, especially if you actually applied (or rather, tried to apply) this to other threads. "I demand proof that he's a cocksucker!" "We need evidence that he's a motherfucker!" So, Duke, if you really want this, put up or shut up. Prove that I'm a "little shit". Prove that my name is Jimmy. Prove it, Duke, and I'll prove that you're an aristocrat wannabe and in love with the idea of re-establishing the peonage. Go on. I'm waiting.

Your last line disproves my analysis of schizophrenic posting. Instead, yours are full-on demented. Do you really think that the German system is accurately described by your tiny-brained "special school for the bottom 5%"? Perhaps you have not been reading any of the actual posts by people describing it, then, save to note that they were apparently disagreeing with me. Keep on trying Duke, someday you'll get it!

Edit: christ, you would think this little shit would realize that his concerns apply just as well to the grading system as to the two/three tiered school systems. What a tool.

Take a swim or something, Duke, you seem to be melting down over there. In any case, why don't you spell this out, since you're teetering hilariously close to accusing me of soft-hearted hippydom, and I'd downright love to see you fall facefirst into that.

*snip gigantic post*

What exactly has changed fundamentally with the American school system, in particular high school, since the Gilded Age? There was no need to actually turn out skilled workers as a majority up until the 80s. Before then, there were no robots and no outsourcing, and jobs on assembly lines (which required no skilled training) were plentiful and available right out of high school. Sputnik may have led to an attempt at including more science in the schools, but did it lead to an actual restructuring? No it did not. Things have changed, but marginally.

When it comes to social classes and all the rest(five percent!), my apologies. I assumed that you were defending Formless' arguments when you joined the debate on his side. Those were based around his specific arguments.

When it comes to two-tiered versus three-tiered, I think our difference is more philosophical than anything else. I don't feel the pressing need to remove business courses from college and incorporate them into secondary education, but I acknowledge that this is merely personal opinion. We really don't disagree all that much, but I feel that we misunderstood each other initially. However, if you want to maintain the derisive and insulting tone, feel free. Understand that I won't be contributing much to it, though.

*explanation of my position*

Simon, you fool! What have you done! Surely you too will be condemned to the Axis of Meritocracy-haters with me when Duke reads that! I weep for you, for it is a tragic fate you will share. Truly, the burning of shame never stops.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What exactly has changed fundamentally with the American school system, in particular high school, since the Gilded Age? There was no need to actually turn out skilled workers as a majority up until the 80s. Before then, there were no robots and no outsourcing, and jobs on assembly lines (which required no skilled training) were plentiful and available right out of high school. Sputnik may have led to an attempt at including more science in the schools, but did it lead to an actual restructuring? No it did not. Things have changed, but marginally.

Higher college enrollment post New Deal necessitated a change in what subjects were included etc. The way the system was structured did not change, but the subject material covered changed a great deal.

We really don't disagree all that much, but I feel that we misunderstood each other initially. However, if you want to maintain the derisive and insulting tone, feel free.

You can go ahead and play innocence abused all you want. My first post was cordial. You decided to start the flaming. I responded in kind.

I don't feel the pressing need to remove business courses from college and incorporate them into secondary education, but I acknowledge that this is merely personal opinion.

Put it this way. There is no reason to go to college if you want to do middle management. If you want to do something specific (like white collar technical jobs like programming, or running a biotech company) then the academic track would be the place for you.

Business school at the university level is a joke. The time and money is wasted on those students who could easily learn what they need to learn when they are younger. Alternatively specific business schools could be set up, rather than have them embedded in universities. The same goes for a lot of subjects. Art for example. There is no point in having a degree program at a university for art. Specific art schools are better for that.

[Bakustra]

What exactly has changed fundamentally with the American school system, in particular high school, since the Gilded Age? There was no need to actually turn out skilled workers as a majority up until the 80s. Before then, there were no robots and no outsourcing, and jobs on assembly lines (which required no skilled training) were plentiful and available right out of high school. Sputnik may have led to an attempt at including more science in the schools, but did it lead to an actual restructuring? No it did not. Things have changed, but marginally.

Higher college enrollment post New Deal necessitated a change in what subjects were included etc. The way the system was structured did not change, but the subject material covered changed a great deal.

We agree then.

We really don't disagree all that much, but I feel that we misunderstood each other initially. However, if you want to maintain the derisive and insulting tone, feel free.

You can go ahead and play innocence abused all you want. My first post was cordial. You decided to start the flaming. I responded in kind.

That was a joke, actually. I was a little annoyed with Formless and snapped at you when I thought you were defending his five percent plan. My apologies.

I don't feel the pressing need to remove business courses from college and incorporate them into secondary education, but I acknowledge that this is merely personal opinion.

Put it this way. There is no reason to go to college if you want to do middle management. If you want to do something specific (like white collar technical jobs like programming, or running a biotech company) then the academic track would be the place for you.

Business school at the university level is a joke. The time and money is wasted on those students who could easily learn what they need to learn when they are younger. Alternatively specific business schools could be set up, rather than have them embedded in universities. The same goes for a lot of subjects. Art for example. There is no point in having a degree program at a university for art. Specific art schools are better for that.

But why split them up, exactly? I think it would be beneficial to allow students of different programs to mix and intermingle, and that this would not drag universities down.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But why split them up, exactly? I think it would be beneficial to allow students of different programs to mix and intermingle, and that this would not drag universities down.

So long as they are in different tracks it does not matter if they are in the same building or not.

[Thanas]

But why split them up, exactly? I think it would be beneficial to allow students of different programs to mix and intermingle, and that this would not drag universities down.

So long as they are in different tracks it does not matter if they are in the same building or not.

...as long as no "we're better than those dumbasses"/"let's go beat up some nerds" stuff develops. We definitely had a vicious rivalry with the Hauptschule that even degenerated into a mass fight once.

If we had been in the same building, it would have been counterproductive to say the least.

Also , the Gesamtschule is pretty much a failed experiment by now.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But why split them up, exactly? I think it would be beneficial to allow students of different programs to mix and intermingle, and that this would not drag universities down.

So long as they are in different tracks it does not matter if they are in the same building or not.

...as long as no "we're better than those dumbasses"/"let's go beat up some nerds" stuff develops. We definitely had a vicious rivalry with the Hauptschule that even degenerated into a mass fight once.

If we had been in the same building, it would have been counterproductive to say the least.

Also , the Gesamtschule is pretty much a failed experiment by now.

I was unaware of this. Yikes.

[Formless]

I addressed this fully in my post to Stas, but I do indeed have a problem with the idea of schools specifically for the top 5% or top 1% or other, tiny fractions, just as I have one with the idea of schools for the bottom 5%. Now, the problem is that by making a school specifically for people who don't care about education, you run a high risk of creating an inheritable condition, as their kids will grow up under those same conditions and likely adopt most of the attitudes of their parents. The same thing would happen with a school solely for the top 5%. Meanwhile, the actual systems in use in Germany and around the world don't use tiny little percentages like these. I'm not railing against the school in the OP because the topic of the thread had drifted from that before I joined. If you really must, I will fill every post of mine in this thread with generalized invective against the very concept of charter schools and magnet schools, but only if you are willing to take the fall if it's considered too spammy. Deal, Duke?

Now you will justify this assertion that it will create such inheritable conditions, or you will shut the fuck up. I'm waiting.

The rest of your post is pretty funny. I actually chuckled a little at some of the things you're saying. Unfortunately for you, they're not what you intended to be amusing, I'm sure. See, my little comments about you being an aristocrat wannabe, Duke, were insults. Gibery. Put-downs. Asking people to justify their flaming is only going to make you a laughingstock, especially if you actually applied (or rather, tried to apply) this to other threads. "I demand proof that he's a cocksucker!" "We need evidence that he's a motherfucker!" So, Duke, if you really want this, put up or shut up. Prove that I'm a "little shit". Prove that my name is Jimmy. Prove it, Duke, and I'll prove that you're an aristocrat wannabe and in love with the idea of re-establishing the peonage. Go on. I'm waiting.

Go play in traffic, fucksock, and draw a target on your chest for good measure. There is a HUGE difference between insulting someone, and attributing motives onto them you know they neither have and indeed would find offensive. The former is insulting: the latter, slander. No, I do not have to prove your name is Jimmy, because indeed that is just an insult, and an accurate description of your mindset.

Your last line disproves my analysis of schizophrenic posting. Instead, yours are full-on demented. Do you really think that the German system is accurately described by your tiny-brained "special school for the bottom 5%"? Perhaps you have not been reading any of the actual posts by people describing it, then, save to note that they were apparently disagreeing with me. Keep on trying Duke, someday you'll get it!

Does it matter? We're arguing over the justifications for the system, not the percentages. You really are incapable of debating this rationally without burning a strawman.

Edit: christ, you would think this little shit would realize that his concerns apply just as well to the grading system as to the two/three tiered school systems. What a tool.

Take a swim or something, Duke, you seem to be melting down over there. In any case, why don't you spell this out, since you're teetering hilariously close to accusing me of soft-hearted hippydom, and I'd downright love to see you fall facefirst into that.

Answer the point, or go to hell

*explanation of my position*

Simon, you fool! What have you done! Surely you too will be condemned to the Axis of Meritocracy-haters with me when Duke reads that! I weep for you, for it is a tragic fate you will share. Truly, the burning of shame never stops.

I fail to see any evidence in Simon's post, so I don't see how his concerns have any merit. Nor does you fearmongering, Little Jimmy.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Now you will justify this assertion that it will create such inheritable conditions, or you will shut the fuck up. I'm waiting.

The problem is, by taking the bottom X percentile and shoving them away into another school, you stigmatize them, and more than likely those schools will get inferior teachers and inferior funding. This creates a situation where the students will leave and be in low paying positions and resentful of the education system. Not only is intelligence genetically heritable, but the attitudes of parents to education strongly impact those of their children. You will end up, by taking the bottom X percent and sequestering them in such an environment, create a situation where a cycle is entered and the kids cant get out of it. The same thing basically happens in poor urban areas in the US, where the schools suck, people are resentful that they could not use education to escape poverty, and thus pass on such attitudes to their children.

This can of course be fixed with an aptitude test which measures a kids ability to learn and enjoy different skills, and then placing them according to that, then not stigmatizing the results.

[Formless]

This can of course be fixed with an aptitude test which measures a kids ability to learn and enjoy different skills, and then placing them according to that, then not stigmatizing the results.

See, what I find amazing is that Bakustra doesn't realize that simple solutions to the problem like this exist, and assumes the worst about my (actually Darth Wong's originally, but why quibble over facts?) proposition, even after I mentioned the possibility that the system could actually give students a potential way out of their parent's situation.

P.S. wouldn't we have to wait extraordinary lengths of time before natural selection becomes important enough to see any noticeable difference in intelligence between the upper and lower class?

[Junghalli]

P.S. wouldn't we have to wait extraordinary lengths of time before natural selection becomes important enough to see any noticeable difference in intelligence between the upper and lower class?

I don't think that's what people are worried about when they're talking about creating an underclass. They're worried about creating a community of uneducated people with a culture that discourages education.

[Alyrium Denryle]

P.S. wouldn't we have to wait extraordinary lengths of time before natural selection becomes important enough to see any noticeable difference in intelligence between the upper and lower class?

I don't think that's what people are worried about when they're talking about creating an underclass. They're worried about creating a community of uneducated people with a culture that discourages education.

Bingo!

Also IQ is only 50% heritable or so. The other 50% comes from learning environment, whether mom and dad read to you as a child etc. So you are looking at 50% of the variation in IQ being explained by socio-economic-parental-investment factors.

[Formless]

P.S. wouldn't we have to wait extraordinary lengths of time before natural selection becomes important enough to see any noticeable difference in intelligence between the upper and lower class?

I don't think that's what people are worried about when they're talking about creating an underclass. They're worried about creating a community of uneducated people with a culture that discourages education.

Bingo!

Also IQ is only 50% heritable or so. The other 50% comes from learning environment, whether mom and dad read to you as a child etc. So you are looking at 50% of the variation in IQ being explained by socio-economic-parental-investment factors.

Fair enough. Of course, there is also a reverse problem no one seems to be interested in-- that richer kids can also be lazier due to having experienced a life of luxury and entitlement, and that despite what their parents may tell them they also don't take school seriously. School is hard work, after all. I suppose you could question how common this is too, so...

[Alyrium Denryle]

Sure. But it is not the school system that starts that cycle.