Do kids need to learn early in life that they can't be good at everything

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Just two stories I heard lately:

A friend who's putting on a play for her class of 9 year olds is having trouble putting a script together because every child in the class must have a speaking role. In that school there's no putting most of the kids in the chorus or telling them they're 'villagers' or whatever; they all have to be given an opportunity to speak.

Another friend's child told me he got a prize for 'artist of the week' at school. I said to my friend that she'd never told me her son was so good at art and she said the school makes sure a different child gets it each week so no one was left out. She said it's the same with 'student of the week' and sports day. Every child gets to win something.

Part of me thinks 'fair play' as I remember when I was at school it was the same people getting the lead roles in plays or having their paintings displayed on the notice board all the time. But another part of me wonders if these children are being set up for disappointment later on if they don't start to learn in primary school that different people have different talents and you can't be good at everything.

Just wondering if you think schools are being fairer now than years ago, or giving children an unrealistic view of the world?

SCOOP 64

Dam! , i thought my kid was good at Art, but everyone gets'artist of the week':(

Vito Corleone

Children need to be prepared for a life of misery and disappointment.

fergiesfolly

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

Just two stories I heard lately:

A friend who's putting on a play for her class of 9 year olds is having trouble putting a script together because every child in the class must have a speaking role. In that school there's no putting most of the kids in the chorus or telling them they're 'villagers' or whatever; they all have to be given an opportunity to speak.

Another friend's child told me he got a prize for 'artist of the week' at school. I said to my friend that she'd never told me her son was so good at art and she said the school makes sure a different child gets it each week so no one was left out. She said it's the same with 'student of the week' and sports day. Every child gets to win something.

Part of me thinks 'fair play' as I remember when I was at school it was the same people getting the lead roles in plays or having their paintings displayed on the notice board all the time. But another part of me wonders if these children are being set up for disappointment later on if they don't start to learn in primary school that different people have different talents and you can't be good at everything.

Just wondering if you think schools are being fairer now than years ago, or giving children an unrealistic view of the world?

Anything that gives kids confidence when they're developing is fine by me.
If it gives them a base of self belief for the struggles in the future, that can only be a good thing.
They'll be knocked down soon enough for long enough.

EuropeanSon

Some kids aren't good at everything.

Mr Freeze

Its like pretending a kid is faster than you at running..."oh you are beating me", "you're so fast".

Then they get destroyed at the School Fun/Sports Day, if there is such a thing anymore, and they can't understand how they were beaten.

Beat your kids at everything, let them win nothing. Might toughen them up for life.

I don't have kids, disregard everything I just said.

jimgoose

I think this is a very unhealthy practice that results in a generation of arrogant little sh!ts with a tremendous sense of entitlement and who don't know what "No!" means. God be with the days when you got your ass handed to you on the hurling field by some herd of freakishly large livestock from up around Meath or somewhere. And the lesson was: Next time, knee that huge full-back in the stones.

Duggy747

In playschool we were having a kind of sports day thingy.

One of them was a race from the top a hill. We all lined up and as the teacher counted down:

Teacher: "Okay...........3.......................2..................."

Me: "NNNNnnnnnaaaaarrgghhh!!"

Teacher: "Duggy!!!...............Get back here!!!..............Duggy!!...........................Duggy!!!"



Still got a medal for my valiant cheating effort :pac:

Akrasia

The schools should be rewarding effort not just ability, but dividing out the plaudits amongst the kids regardless of effort or ability is counter productive

If you're a terrible at art but you're obviously really trying and pushing yourself, the school should reward this even more than a student who is naturally good at art but only does the bare minimum required by the teacher.

The same with sports. If a kid isn't that talented but he goes to training every week and he puts in the hours and works hard, he should definitely be rewarded with a place on the team more than the kid who is naturally gifted but regularly misses training sessions or has an otherwise bad attitude.

Kids who are bad at something but aren't really bothering to make any effort either absolutely should not be given praise or reward for that activity because this is counter productive.

miss no stars

Thread title doesn't really reflect the content.

Do kids need to learn that they can't be good at everything? Yes, provided that there's at least one thing that they've proven not to be good at.

Should each kid get a part? Ah yea, that's a nice idea and probably very helpful to the more timid kids who wouldn't try to get a speaking role normally.

Is it wrong to make sure each kid gets some sort of "student of the week" award? No. It's a fantastic idea. Most primary school kids do their best but by the nature of a large class, most will never truely stand out. It's a little reward that does them no harm and encourages them to keep trying.

ETA: I'd distinguish between that sort of thing and the constant praise that American kids in particular receive. Praising kids constantly for doing ordinary things isn't good. Recognizing the effort they're putting in once or twice in a school year is totally different.

Sarky

Grading curves need to f*ck off and die in a fire.

Akrasia

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Anything that gives kids confidence when they're developing is fine by me.
If it gives them a base of self belief for the struggles in the future, that can only be a good thing.
They'll be knocked down soon enough for long enough.

The latest research shows that overuse of empty praise actually harms the confidence of children.

If a child does something easy and does it well without much effort and the teacher makes a big deal about it, the kid might feel happy in that moment, but when she is faced with something more difficult and it takes more effort to do well, the child feels as though she is failing because what came easy before is now more difficult. She is less likely to take on challenging tasks where failure is more likely.

If the focus of praise is on effort, then it doesn't matter if the child succeeds at the task, she is rewarded for challenging herself and I think this kind of attitude is great to have in the long term.

gobnaitolunacy

What about 'messer of the week' or 'loudest armpit fart noise of the week' categories?

Saucy McKetchup

Children need to learn that effort and hard work need to be put in to achieve their goals and not just receive an award because it was their turn to.

Big Tom Mainliner

I often play my son in a game of football in the back garden. I'll say it up to 10. I let him go ahead by 9 goals and then destroy him 10-9.

That way, he gets the joy of scoring 9 goals against his old man, but ultimately learns that I am always going to be better than him.

The Pheasant2

This pisses me off to no end. I've no problem with rewarding hard work or effort but this "everyone's a winner, everyone gets a medal" is a pretty damaging practice in my opinion. It's a fact of life that some people are better at some activities than others and I don't understand why children can't be taught that and just be proud of they're own talent.

Akrasia

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

What about 'messer of the week' or 'loudest armpit fart noise of the week' categories?

You're only codding yourself young man

Akrasia

Big Tom Mainliner wrote: »

I often play my son in a game of football in the back garden. I'll say it up to 10. I let him go ahead by 9 goals and then destroy him 10-9.

That way, he gets the joy of scoring 9 goals against his old man, but ultimately learns that I am always going to be better than him.

When I was a kid, we had a table-tennis table set up in the garage (a piece of plywood with a net and some bats)

My Dad got a bit cocky one day and bet me a tenner that he would beat me

I think he gave me a bit of a head start but I beat him in the first game and asked for my tenner.

Double of quits he said, I wanted to cash out but he said he wanted keep playing
I beat him again, now he owed me £20

he started to panic a bit, he couldn't really afford to give away 20 quid. I wanted the money but he wouldn't let me quit. Doubles or quits again, and I won again, and again. £80 was on the table before my dad finally beat me.

Now, that'll teach you a lesson he said. You should always quit when you're ahead.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Thanks for the replies. I do think any child who's trying and making an effort should get encouragement and awards for 'most improved' etc are a good idea. But I also think if a child is, for instance, not particularly academic but brilliant at art or singing or sport it is nice for that to be recognised and for them to realise that they have a special talent of their own. It's hard for that to happen if every child gets a turn at winning the art prize or being picked to sing a solo in the school concert or whatever.
I suppose there's a happy medium somewhere between the weaker or even average kids receiving no reward or encouragement and the genuinely talented children having their particular skill recognised.

The Pheasant2

I'd actually also wonder what effect all this praising of mediocrity has on the truly exceptional kids? Does it set the bar lower for them? Does it teach them that they'll be rewarded regardless of honing and exceeding in their talent? If polio Billy gets the same medal in the footrace as Speedy Gonzales, why would Speedy even bother exert himself?

The Pheasant2

Akrasia wrote: »

When I was a kid, we had a table-tennis table set up in the garage (a piece of plywood with a net and some bats)

My Dad got a bit cocky one day and bet me a tenner that he would beat me

I think he gave me a bit of a head start but I beat him in the first game and asked for my tenner.

Double of quits he said, I wanted to cash out but he said he wanted keep playing
I beat him again, now he owed me £20

he started to panic a bit, he couldn't really afford to give away 20 quid. I wanted the money but he wouldn't let me quit. Doubles or quits again, and I won again, and again. £80 was on the table before my dad finally beat me.

Now, that'll teach you a lesson he said. You should always quit when you're ahead.

A similar thing happened at chess with my Dad and I, although he did let me cash out after 2 victories I think the first time you finally actually beat your father at anything is a pretty defining moment in your childhood

burnhardlanger

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

This pisses me off to no end. I've no problem with rewarding hard work or effort but this "everyone's a winner, everyone gets a medal" is a pretty damaging practice in my opinion. It's a fact of life that some people are better at some activities than others and I don't understand why children can't be taught that and just be proud of they're own talent.

Silver medallist? More like First Loser!!!!!

Frank Black

My four year old gets really upset when I beat him at chess. I mean he doesn't even know what way some of the pieces move, so of course I have a big advantage in our matches.

He'll thank me in later life though.

miss no stars

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

I'd actually also wonder what effect all this praising of mediocrity has on the truly exceptional kids? Does it set the bar lower for them? Does it teach them that they'll be rewarded regardless of honing and exceeding in their talent? If polio Billy gets the same medal in the footrace as Speedy Gonzales, why would Speedy even bother exert himself?

I think it's more to do with the attitude of the parents.

Like, if a kid who's an amazing drawer/speller/reader/student comes home and is all like "so-and-so got the art/spelling/reading/student prize but they SUCK at whatever and I'm way better and I've only won it once"

The parents can respond with "well, maybe the teacher is looking at how well they've done this week compared to normally? Or maybe the teacher thinks they've done a little better this week and wants to give them some encouragement to keep working really hard? The teacher knows you're great at it and so do we. I'm extremely proud of how good you are at it and I hope you know that" *hug and kiss*

or they could respond with

"I know, it's so unfair. I'll speak to the teacher"

One will help the child learn what is sometimes actually going on might be different to appearances, will reassure them, teach them a little about life, mitigate their unhappiness and help them to develop more mature thinking. The other will affirm their bitterness and teach them that awards are given to those who slack.

Kids are in school for what, less than 30 hours a week? They can learn a certain amount in school, but it's how parents help them process what happens in school that will determine what they take from it.

Jester252

Yes kids need to know that not everyone can win. The amount of times I'm playing soccer or something else with my little cousins and its turns into a UN peace deal conference because everyone gets upset if they don't win.

I've started to teach them that the guy with over 100 pounds on them and 3 feet taller will beat them day in day out.

I am in two mines about this one, my oldest daughter had a part time job in a restaurant she started working there at 15, when she was 17 the owner made her a supervisor on quite days and she had to cash up and lock up a big responsibility, The effect one her confidence was amazing because it was real:
it was someone who had trust in her with their livelihood! all the years of teachers and me telling her she was wonderful didn't work it took a real live work situation to make her believer in herself. Even small children know when everyone get a prize it is meaningless they are not fools.

The everyone gets a speaking part is harmless though.

caustic 1

I think the idea is, a child wins best art this week, next week it's another child, so first child didn't win that week or for a while again because it has to go around the class, therefore encourages the children to try a bit harder then the week they win again they will be pleased their work has paid off. So they won't win all the time but will sometimes.

KyussBishop

Just don't make things a competition. When a kid is interested in something, and shows some real progress/talent at it, praise and encourage it.
If what the kid is doing is really crap, provide constructive criticism, in a way tactful enough, that they think they figured out the problem themselves.

When a kid fails at something, teach them that this is how you learn, that you need failure to learn, as most things are learned by making a lot of mistakes first - and praise persistence in the face of this.

This is why you don't make a competition out of things, kids need to learn to deal with failure/mistakes, and making praise conditional, just sets them up for a fragile self-esteem, in the face of failure; competition also has the effect especially on kids, of turning some of them into dicks that turn everything into a competition, and lord their success over others, and try to hold others back, so they can 'win' the competition and gain social status - this affects kids socially, and is probably part of the dynamic that encourages bullying and a social pecking order (many peoples most disliked aspect of school - and the perfect way to kill many kids academic potential).


Make sure your kid knows, that school is actually shít at providing a real aptitude at most of the subjects taught, and that it's a rote exam-taking mill; let them know, that whatever they're really interested in from school, you can make time for them to learn more about (in a more interesting way) outside of school. Try to do a bit of this anyway as encouragement, because school is great at killing a budding interest in many of the topics taught.

Personally, I don't think parents should hand-off all of the education of their kids, to school - parents need to take a regular active part in encouraging intellectual interests/development in their kids, and that means developing (and making the time for) similar interests themselves too.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

KyussBishop wrote: »

Just don't make things a competition. When a kid is interested in something, and shows some real progress/talent at it, praise and encourage it.
If what the kid is doing is really crap, provide constructive criticism, in a way tactful enough, that they think they figured out the problem themselves.

When a kid fails at something, teach them that this is how you learn, that you need failure to learn, as most things are learned by making a lot of mistakes first - and praise persistence in the face of this.

This is why you don't make a competition out of things, kids need to learn to deal with failure/mistakes, and making praise conditional, just sets them up for a fragile self-esteem, in the face of failure; competition also has the effect especially on kids, of turning some of them into dicks that turn everything into a competition, and lord their success over others, and try to hold others back, so they can 'win' the competition and gain social status - this affects kids socially, and is probably part of the dynamic that encourages bullying and a social pecking order (many peoples most disliked aspect of school - and the perfect way to kill many kids academic potential).


Make sure your kid knows, that school is actually shít at providing a real aptitude at most of the subjects taught, and that it's a rote exam-taking mill; let them know, that whatever they're really interested in from school, you can make time for them to learn more about (in a more interesting way) outside of school. Try to do a bit of this anyway as encouragement, because school is great at killing a budding interest in many of the topics taught.

Personally, I don't think parents should hand-off all of the education of their kids, to school - parents need to take a regular active part in encouraging intellectual interests/development in their kids, and that means developing (and making the time for) similar interests themselves too.

Very true. I also think the 'points race' has taken the educational aspect away from school and just turned it into some kind of cramming exercise. If you can figure out what's likely to come up this year and retain the information you need long enough to get it down on the page, it doesn't matter a damn if you forget it all five minutes after the exam.
It would be nice if our education system also measured things like interpersonal skills, teamworking, creativity, and other skills that are just as (and often more) useful in a working environment as a string of As and Bs in academic subjects.

The Pheasant2

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

It would be nice if our education system also measured things like interpersonal skills, teamworking, creativity, and other skills that are just as (and often more) useful in a working environment as a string of As and Bs in academic subjects.

It would just be too difficult to grade that kind of thing and people would invariably find a way to study for it - Look at the HPAT, supposed to be "unstudiablefor" and yet there are preparation courses which show you how to study for it and score highly. Those who attend these courses and use the study materials overwhelmingly score higher than those who don't.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

It would just be too difficult to grade that kind of thing and people would invariably find a way to study for it - Look at the HPAT, supposed to be "unstudiablefor" and yet there are preparation courses which show you how to study for it and score highly. Those who attend these courses and use the study materials overwhelmingly score higher than those who don't.

I didn't mean actually grading it. I meant that the focus is too much on academic exams and points and students are forced to concentrate almost totally on those. If students learnt to develop the other skills a lot of them would be a lot more use in a typical working environment. As it is you have people coming with with high leaving certs and impressive sounding degrees, but they are sometimes hopelessly disorganised, overly pedantic, unable to meet deadlines, have no concept of being part of a team or are unable to communicate effectively with other people.
Obviously there are much bigger issues here such as some employers also focussing solely on degrees as opposed to practical experience and Universities accepting students based simply on points with no interviews to assess aptitude, genuine interest and suitability for the course they want to undertake.

Irish Steve

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

Very true. I also think the 'points race' has taken the educational aspect away from school and just turned it into some kind of cramming exercise. If you can figure out what's likely to come up this year and retain the information you need long enough to get it down on the page, it doesn't matter a damn if you forget it all five minutes after the exam.
It would be nice if our education system also measured things like interpersonal skills, teamworking, creativity, and other skills that are just as (and often more) useful in a working environment as a string of As and Bs in academic subjects.

Very true, and can I add another thing, Education should also be about LIFE skills. That means mundane but important things like how to change a fuse, or replace a tap washer, or change a battery in a door bell, or how to get the air out of a radiator so that it works, the sort of things that should be second nature to modern living, but seem to defeat increasing numbers of people, if the threads in the plumbing and electrics forums are anything to go by.

Life is not about how many points you get on a hot sweaty afternoon one June, to determine so much of what will follow on the basis of that one event, or series of events, is to devalue so much of human experience, and degrade the person.

At one stage, inter school games were banned in the UK, as losing might traumatise the child or team that lost. If 2 people run a race, 99% of the time, one will finish before the other. There's nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with encouraging children to compete, as long as the manner in which they do it is not combative, and the "loser" is not made to feel inadequate as a result of participating.

If the "winner" is inappropriately rewarded, or the loser excessively punished, then the system is wrong.

Kids are not all equal, neither are adults. That does not mean they are superior or inferior, they are just simply different. Once that is recognised, so much of the rest of life is easy.

anncoates

I wasn't aware that giving all the kids a bit of encouragement and praise in, say, an art class in primary school will immediately lead them to believe they'll win the Turner Prize 20 years later.

I don;t think it's a bad idea to keep kids free for merit-based competition as long as possible and allow them to have fun and be creative.

One thing you see it in is team sports for little kids here like football. At an age where they should be having fun, enjoying camaraderie and keeping active, you instead see all these parents and coaches screaming at them to win and ignoring the kids of lesser ability as to win games.

The Pheasant2

Irish Steve wrote: »

Very true, and can I add another thing, Education should also be about LIFE skills. That means mundane but important things like how to change a fuse, or replace a tap washer, or change a battery in a door bell, or how to get the air out of a radiator so that it works, the sort of things that should be second nature to modern living

My Dad actually taught me all these, but we did eventually do them in Junior Cert physics...so those who can't do it now are just forgetful or weren't paying attention at the time!

Tombo2001

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

Just two stories I heard lately:

A friend who's putting on a play for her class of 9 year olds is having trouble putting a script together because every child in the class must have a speaking role. In that school there's no putting most of the kids in the chorus or telling them they're 'villagers' or whatever; they all have to be given an opportunity to speak.

Another friend's child told me he got a prize for 'artist of the week' at school. I said to my friend that she'd never told me her son was so good at art and she said the school makes sure a different child gets it each week so no one was left out. She said it's the same with 'student of the week' and sports day. Every child gets to win something.

Part of me thinks 'fair play' as I remember when I was at school it was the same people getting the lead roles in plays or having their paintings displayed on the notice board all the time. But another part of me wonders if these children are being set up for disappointment later on if they don't start to learn in primary school that different people have different talents and you can't be good at everything.

Just wondering if you think schools are being fairer now than years ago, or giving children an unrealistic view of the world?

Makes an improvement on the traditional Irish educational approach of knocking the bejasus out of everybody......

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Irish Steve wrote: »

Very true, and can I add another thing, Education should also be about LIFE skills. That means mundane but important things like how to change a fuse, or replace a tap washer, or change a battery in a door bell, or how to get the air out of a radiator so that it works, the sort of things that should be second nature to modern living, but seem to defeat increasing numbers of people, if the threads in the plumbing and electrics forums are anything to go by.

Life is not about how many points you get on a hot sweaty afternoon one June, to determine so much of what will follow on the basis of that one event, or series of events, is to devalue so much of human experience, and degrade the person.

At one stage, inter school games were banned in the UK, as losing might traumatise the child or team that lost. If 2 people run a race, 99% of the time, one will finish before the other. There's nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with encouraging children to compete, as long as the manner in which they do it is not combative, and the "loser" is not made to feel inadequate as a result of participating.

If the "winner" is inappropriately rewarded, or the loser excessively punished, then the system is wrong.

Kids are not all equal, neither are adults. That does not mean they are superior or inferior, they are just simply different. Once that is recognised, so much of the rest of life is easy.

I totally agree. Kids should also be taught about basic finance eg how a mortgage works, the difference between current and savings accounts, the risks of living off credit, basic budgeting techniques etc.

The Pheasant2

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

I totally agree. Kids should also be taught about basic finance eg how a mortgage works, the difference between current and savings accounts, the risks of living off credit, basic budgeting techniques etc.

They get taught this in junior cert business...a lot of the stuff people are suggesting already happens, I did my junior cert 5 years ago and they had it then anyway

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

Just two stories I heard lately:

A friend who's putting on a play for her class of 9 year olds is having trouble putting a script together because every child in the class must have a speaking role. In that school there's no putting most of the kids in the chorus or telling them they're 'villagers' or whatever; they all have to be given an opportunity to speak.

Another friend's child told me he got a prize for 'artist of the week' at school. I said to my friend that she'd never told me her son was so good at art and she said the school makes sure a different child gets it each week so no one was left out. She said it's the same with 'student of the week' and sports day. Every child gets to win something.

Part of me thinks 'fair play' as I remember when I was at school it was the same people getting the lead roles in plays or having their paintings displayed on the notice board all the time. But another part of me wonders if these children are being set up for disappointment later on if they don't start to learn in primary school that different people have different talents and you can't be good at everything.

Just wondering if you think schools are being fairer now than years ago, or giving children an unrealistic view of the world?

Technically, no, but the education system is so narrow-minded it overcompensates.

For excample, a kid who might not be academically bright but very creative artistically will not get the same recognition as the kid who gets straight As but can't do a dam nothing with the information he's learnt.

You can give awards to the best people without leaving kids out - as long ast he kids that get left out get the same praise for the genuine achievements they make in other fields. Sadly, this doesn't always happen.

whatdoicare

It's really weird that what happens to a child in school in primary can shape them. I'm not sure though I like this policy of everyone getting a trophy or of rewarding effort.

When I was in junior infants I remember killing myself every week to get full marks in the end of week spelling competition the teacher would have and win whatever she gave, I think a gold sticker star and a bag of sweets or something.

I won it the first time and delighted with myself I continued to get full marks every single week. Now, it didn't come natural to me, I plagued my dad to study with me every night to get the marks,so I put in the hard work. I got my prize the first three weeks and then nothing! I kept getting the marks but no prize and I was starting to getting upset about it so my dad went up one dad to ask what was going on.

The teacher explained that I'd won so many times it felt unfair to those who didn't get full marks but tried hard to not be rewarded. Fair enough my dad said and went home to try explain it all to me.

Obviously my four/five year old mind couldn't understand the concept of working hard for no reward, sure sesame Street told me if I work hard I'll get my prize, fair and square, so I took from the conversation that no matter what I did I wasn't getting a prize so I stopped wanting to work.

When my dad called me for lessons I'd just start roaring crying, I now associated my lesson with a sort of punishment and wanted to be away from it. My grades of course started dropping,I was being given out to all the time by parents and teachers and I stopped playing with my other class mates. I'd lost all confidence in myself.

It took until I went into third class and a fabulous teacher who recognised what was actually going on and actively bucked me up to start repairing the damage caused by that seeming innocent competition.

By that time I was so shy and inside my own head that I spent my days hiding from my classmates in the school yard and my grades were just awful. I was afraid to try for anything (not because I was afraid I'd win but that I'd win and somehow be punished for it, I didn't remember why that was but I remembered that I did well in a test and mum and dad were mad at me over it) or put my hand up in class.

I was terrified of everything because I was confused about the half remembered debacle that happened in junior infants. My mom would often reminisce about the confident girl I was when that age and couldn't understand what happened. My folks didn't remember that competition or its affect on me so didn't see the connection. Sure how could they know what was going on in my head,in hind sight sure but at the time it wasn't so clear.

I'm glad I came through it by secondary school but it did have a profound effect on me and my whole young life, my relationships with my class mates, my association with learning and my self confidence.

I think you have to be so careful what you teach a child at that age they're sponges and they don't understand the world outside home. Something innocent could become very ingrained in their little heads.

Bounty Hunter Dan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll8KTae3AA0

c68zapdsm5i1ru

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

They get taught this in junior cert business...a lot of the stuff people are suggesting already happens, I did my junior cert 5 years ago and they had it then anyway

Well that's good to hear because when I was at school we learnt nothing like that. We knew all about the causes of WW1 and the reproductive system of rabbits but hadn't a clue how to manage a bank account, work out a budget, balance a cheque book or all the other simple but important things that you need to know in day to day life.

stmol32

I think this belongs here.
Sean Locke is like the lone voice of reason in a sea of delusion.

The Pheasant2

Esteban Old-fashioned Crane wrote: »

Well that's good to hear because when I was at school we learnt nothing like that. We knew all about the causes of WW1 and the reproductive system of rabbits but hadn't a clue how to manage a bank account, work out a budget, balance a cheque book or all the other simple but important things that you need to know in day to day life.

Yeah it's good that they're moving towards more relevant education. Ah c'mon the causes of WW1 is an important part of history! One thing I would fear of if we were to go too far with purely practical education is that people won't know anything except for how to "live" their lives.

I would always get a bit annoyed at the kids who would shout "When are we ever going to use this in real life?" when we were doing algebra or poetry or learning the capitals or other countries etc. Without having that general education and having a decent grounding in most subjects I think there's a danger that our education system will be churning out ignorant philistines who only want to earn as much money as possible (a pattern which I've already noticed to be growing among young people) rather than educated people. (Not saying that you were saying that - just saying there are risks involved with education being too..."useful" for lack of a better term.

Earthhorse

Kids don't need to learn this early in their lives if, by early, you mean before the age of around 12 or so. They have so much development to go through at that stage it's better to let them developed un-inhibited by this knowledge.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Yeah it's good that they're moving towards more relevant education. Ah c'mon the causes of WW1 is an important part of history! One thing I would fear of if we were to go too far with purely practical education is that people won't know anything except for how to "live" their lives.

I would always get a bit annoyed at the kids who would shout "When are we ever going to use this in real life?" when we were doing algebra or poetry or learning the capitals or other countries etc. Without having that general education and having a decent grounding in most subjects I think there's a danger that our education system will be churning out ignorant philistines who only want to earn as much money as possible (a pattern which I've already noticed to be growing among young people) rather than educated people. (Not saying that you were saying that - just saying there are risks involved with education being too..."useful" for lack of a better term.

I agree. We just happened to be talking about the centenary of the first world war in work yesterday and started reminiscing about history lessons in school which is why that example came to mind.I was just trying to make the point that coming out of school with lots of theoretical knowledge but no education in how to deal with the ordinary everyday aspects of life is not ideal. A balance between the two and giving due credit to pupils who may not be A students academically but are very creative, have excellent leadership skills, are full of initiative etc would be a better, more rounded system.

anncoates

It's also a case of gauging how important is "excellence" for a given pursuit.

You don't have to in the very upper level of ability to enjoy creative activities, sports or education, not do we have to distil participation in same against some utilitarian list for usefulness in careers and whatnot.

Sadly, there's time enough for any child to realize where they stand in the meritocratic scheme of things so just let childhood be a time of innocence, encouragement and fun.

Liger vs Tigon

Earthhorse wrote: »

Kids don't need to learn this early in their lives if, by early, you mean before the age of around 12 or so. They have so much development to go through at that stage it's better to let them developed un-inhibited by this knowledge.

Replace 12 with 6 or 7 and you'd be right.

SPS1

Motivation, effort & talent are required throughout life to reach goals (in that order). We as a society award this in the form of job status, benefits in kind etc.
Competition is the driving force behind this.

Teaching a child that participation alone regardless of effort put in , is worthy of reward, is not going to help them in their attitude to life. It's not how the world works.

The opposing arguments all seem to have some parallel to communism vs capitalism in mindset .

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SPS1 wrote: »

Motivation, effort & talent are required throughout life to reach goals (in that order). We as a society award this in the form of job status, benefits in kind etc.
Competition is the driving force behind this.

In an ideal world, yes. but society is not like that in reality. Know of people pick up credit and job beenfits despite not really beign all that good at theor job.

Teaching a child that participation alone regardless of effort put in , is worthy of reward, is not going to help them in their attitude to life. It's not how the world works.

The opposing arguments all seem to have some parallel to communism vs capitalism in mindset .

More of a social that economic argument I would have said, but I see the parallel.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

SPS1 wrote: »

Motivation, effort & talent are required throughout life to reach goals (in that order). We as a society award this in the form of job status, benefits in kind etc.
Competition is the driving force behind this.

Teaching a child that participation alone regardless of effort put in , is worthy of reward, is not going to help them in their attitude to life. It's not how the world works.

The opposing arguments all seem to have some parallel to communism vs capitalism in mindset .

What about job satisfaction; using your talents; working with likeminded people whose company you enjoy? Not everyone is driven by jobs with status, big salaries, company cars, large houses etc. Some people want to earn enough to support themselves and their families in reasonable comfort and, beyond that, other things are more important.

anncoates

SPS1 wrote: »

Motivation, effort & talent are required throughout life to reach goals (in that order). We as a society award this in the form of job status, benefits in kind etc.
Competition is the driving force behind this.

Teaching a child that participation alone regardless of effort put in , is worthy of reward, is not going to help them in their attitude to life. It's not how the world works.
.

You can still encourage children to achieve their potential without turning their childhood into some dreary, funereal, corporate foundation course.