Why is education so poor?

At most universities in the U.S. even though my planned major has nothing to do with it.

 

Not really. The textbook companies produce textbooks for each state's curriculum. I used to teach science in Alabama. As early as 2000, we had custom Alabama curriculum textbooks. They met all the standards of our curriculum. If a fairly low population state like Alabama (population of about 4.4 million in 2000, 23 in populaton) can have custom textbooks, then all states can. Pre computer controlled printing, you were right.

 

Soon, they might not be able to do that either.

 

English is a very irrational language. I used to get so irritated working with spelling with my sons. I would teach them a rule, and then there would be an exception to it. I'm so glad I don't have to learn English as a second language.

 

Really? It is hard for me to believe. Because normally they teach in English. And if that is Spanish whatever? Spanish is the second most speaken language in USA, and in a few years will surpass the English. So will be more important the Spanish than English.

And now I will use your imperialistic arguments, how Spanish will be more important, and the Latin American countries are growing and becoming more powerful, so the Spanish will become more important, so why you don't forget English that is a language of an Empire in recession and you start to learn one of the most important languages?

 

Education in the USA is made to be poor. It is not to make the masses smart and intelligent. That would infringe on the elite and make capitlaism less profitable.

 

Question for The Diplomat2.0:

More information on NY's so-called "CTE High Schools".

Or Frogger?!

 

Spanish isn't required, but 2 years of a foreign language is. In many high schools, Spanish is the only foreign language offered. If the U.S. had a better education system, it wouldn't be in a recession. And if the U.S. takes over other countries, there is no need for everybody learning their language.

 

??? So the countries with better education systems don't ever experience recessions?

 

If the education system is good enough, then yes they wouldn't ever experience recessions.

 

Perhaps you should find a better school - one that will teach you about the cause of recessions.

They are a natural part of the cycles of any economy or market. They are not caused by bad educations.

 

I think they're caused by both. Big College is making it artificially difficult to get educated in fields such as engineering and even trades, which makes the supply of people with relevant skills artificially low.

However, recessions and even depressions are inevitable no matter what because, well, malinvestments are inevitable. Malinvestments and hyperinflation (caused by the government), and economically destructive taxation, all seem to be inevitable.

 

Do you really think that IQ tests or college degrees are the best way to measure intelligence, let alone actual working knowledge? IQ test scores vary from test to test because they all make different assumptions about how to measure "intelligence" which is really a subjective concept anyways, in all objectivity.

 

No,...

Keynes adressed this.

 

I think they are probably better than using a college degree to certify intelligence, which is how college degrees in non STEM subjects is mostly used by employers.

 

Well I don't want to turn this philosophical, but "intelligence" is really not a pristine objective concept..no matter how many times a psychologist makes up a test that he personally thinks will measure "how smart" someone is. If I had to design that sort of test, it'd take a lot longer than 2 hours to take it.

 

Employers are not interested in philosophy. They wanted a test to determine if the potential employees are smart enough to do the job they are being hired for.

 

And again, that assumes that IQ tests measure "how smart you are". They don't even agree with each other (different IQ tests). I'd say there might be such a thing as "overall intelligence" but it's pretty cruel to give a number to someone's intelligence based on what some psychologist deemed to be a good test in their personal opinion, and also pretty stupid (pun intended).

 

This is true. Everyone has certain strengths and weaknesses. An IQ test is administered and scored by actual people, not some computer, so it's up to you to showcase what your intellectual strengths are. That being said, some people are never "awakened" to discover their own personal strengths. I would like to think that public education at least affords the opportunity for these people to explore themselves to find out what they can be good at.

 

I don't exactly know what your point is here.

The best option would be for people to have the option to selectively take the sperm and eggs from their bodies which have the genes most suited for "intelligence", and do in vitro fertilization. Nature beats nurture 90% of the time.

 

My point is what you make of it. If you find none then there is none for you.

This is feeling very circular at this point. Who determines the criteria for "intelligence" when you're dissecting genes? I assume we can get some broad consensus on general "intelligent" genes, but there is just too much we DON'T know right now about different combinations of genes and activators, etc., that I don't think I can endorse such an approach at this time.

 

That would depend on the opinions of the parents and/or companies that performed such genetic selection. Obviously different people and organizations would have different views on how to determine "intelligence".

But again, genes >>>> nurture.

 

source please? i apologize ahead of time for my ignorance. i have not been keeping up as much as i should have on these issues.

 

Before I overcome my laziness and cough up some valid sources for that, I'll just say that it should be common sense to realize this; the difference in intelligence between apes and bears is due to genes, just like the difference in body build etc. between apes and bears is due to genes.

I shouldn't even be using the word "intelligence" because objectively, such a concept doesn't exist and is ridiculous. But certain informational processing strengths such as manipulations of spatial objects, understanding concepts, etc., do exist, and these strengths seem to be due to neurological behavior.

 

the distinction you make is an evolutionary one. apes and bears are completely different species. conversely, in this case we are talking about present day humans only. present day humans differ from every other species in any other time period because of 1 major factor in my view, and that is free will. freedom of choice brings nurture right back into the debate. in other words, the variable of instinct is significantly diminished in present day humans.