Does school prepare us for later life?

Robsweezie

i would agree to a certain extent it does. dress code, dealing with authority, punctuality, respect and manners are encouraged/enforced. certain subjects like home ec can teach practical skills in the home.

theres a lot of joking about ramming quadratic equations and square roots down our throats yet not educating on real life matters like taxes, budgeting money, relationships, mental health etc.


what do you think?

eet fuk

It's as though people really don't understand the importance of maths. It's so important for our absract thinking/logic.

As for the real life stuff. I think it's better to figure out a lot of things on your own. Taxes, relationships,wiping your bum etc. are not really that difficult.

I met my wife there when we were 12. She was, by far and away, the most attractive woman in the class, the one everyone worshipped. I was, in fairness, no great shakes with the ladies. Eventually through friendship I wore her down and we first kissed when we were 17. Married at 29, child at 40.

So yeah, school brought me the best thing in my life. Did it teach me much? Meh, I got a good Leaving Cert, did what I wanted at Uni, blah blah blah job and mortgage and the not so important stuff. But it gave me the best thing ever.

osarusan

You looked at the generation what! survey also?

armaghlad

School teaches you how to prepare for exams and not much else.

entropi

I honestly believe some schooling should be done to relate to real world problems, like budgeting, learner driving, c.v and interview prep (going on to college or not, its an essential thing), diet & nutrition, and methods of relaxation including yoga or meditation techniques lifted from sports psychology. I also would like to see that anyone who would have an interest in programming, allowed to take it as a class. In a world increasingly dependent on technology, programming is always going to be around, and can instantly allow access to employment if someone continues down that path. I also received sex education classes aged 11. This was incredibly helpful to me, and no doubt most of my class.

cassid

My 9 year old learnt about mindfulness today in school and they were told to spend 2 minutes every day doing it, he said he just laughed as the instructor sounded weird blowing into a microphone and someone made a fart sound, when you are 9 these things are just hilarous.

They are covered loads of topics, such a drug abuse, addiction, suicide, bullying, a healthy diet, very comprehensive. I don't ever remember doing anything like, I think i was still finger painting at 9

In secondary school the irish and english subjects were the biggest time sink and waste of time for later life. it's been 20 years so maybe something has changed? Learning to make sapg-bol etc. in transition year home etc. has likely saved me from dangerous salt and sugar levels in my diet :pac:

BoatMad

I think schools should focus on the three Rs , then stream and separate kids with different aptitudes and abilities

but I know this isn't popular !

billie1b

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I met my wife there when we were 12. She was, by far and away, the most attractive woman in the class, the one everyone worshipped. I was, in fairness, no great shakes with the ladies. Eventually through friendship I wore her down and we first kissed when we were 17. Married at 29, child at 40.

So yeah, school brought me the best thing in my life. Did it teach me much? Meh, I got a good Leaving Cert, did what I wanted at Uni, blah blah blah job and mortgage and the not so important stuff. But it gave me the best thing ever.

Your wife is a member here and knows your username right????

In all seriousness though, fair play, wish ye the best of luck and happiness for the rest of it.

tigerboon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I met my wife there when we were 12. She was, by far and away, the most attractive woman in the class,..

Did she stay back a few times?

AtomicHorror

Primary school misled me into thinking I was super clever- I found everything really easy and so when I went into secondary school, I failed exams for the first time ever. That taught me a lot, mostly about my own bad attitudes.

Secondary school taught me to love science and art- figured out my general path in life during transition year, which was good. Learned that if you take yourself too seriously, other people will do their damnedest to make a joke out of you. It also taught me to be very sceptical of people in positions of authority- and religion. Thing is, I wouldn't have a bad word to say against any priest that ever taught me, but the lay religion teachers- absolute pricks.

As it was an all boys school, it also contributed to my frankly woeful approach to relationships.

So, yes and no.

billie1b

billie1b wrote: »

Your wife is a member here and knows your username right????

In all seriousness though, fair play, wish ye the best of luck and happiness for the rest of it.

Thanks for the kind words.

Think my wife might be a member here, not sure, doesn't bother me either way. She is stunning looking, if I said she was the attractive one in the class at school I should have added that she is one of those types who get more attractive as the years go by. And she is a saint., she put up with a lot of years of me going out and not getting home until the 4/6/8am times. On the other hand she never had any reason to doubt me, the whole "why have burger away when I have steak at home" thing applies...

One eyed Jack

entropi wrote: »

I honestly believe some schooling should be done to relate to real world problems, like budgeting, learner driving, c.v and interview prep (going on to college or not, its an essential thing), diet & nutrition, and methods of relaxation including yoga or meditation techniques lifted from sports psychology. I also would like to see that anyone who would have an interest in programming, allowed to take it as a class. In a world increasingly dependent on technology, programming is always going to be around, and can instantly allow access to employment if someone continues down that path. I also received sex education classes aged 11. This was incredibly helpful to me, and no doubt most of my class.

There's only so much can be squeezed into an already packed curriculum, and only so many hours in a school day. A lot of the stuff on that list would be practical skills that can be learned outside the curriculum if the student is actually interested, or can be taught, nurtured and encouraged by parents (although meditation and well-being with regard to mental health are now being introduced in many schools and the feedback has been very positive).

School absolutely prepares people for life IMO by giving students the basic building blocks of education, encouraging social development and so on. I think some people don't tend to appreciate the opportunities they're given, so they're not going to make the most of them.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Didn't prepare me for anything. We were molly coddled. Honours students who weren't pushed.

I didn't really start to act independently until I was on a University campus and bi monthly projects were being demanded out of me by some distant lecturer.

Get out into the real world after college and quadruple that pressure.

Too soft in my sec school, we were ready for nothing. You have to be tough and demand high standards as well as being fair.

entropi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's only so much can be squeezed into an already packed curriculum, and only so many hours in a school day. A lot of the stuff on that list would be practical skills that can be learned outside the curriculum if the student is actually interested, or can be taught, nurtured and encouraged by parents (although meditation and well-being with regard to mental health are now being introduced in many schools and the feedback has been very positive).

School absolutely prepares people for life IMO by giving students the basic building blocks of education, encouraging social development and so on. I think some people don't tend to appreciate the opportunities they're given, so they're not going to make the most of them.

Nurturing and encouragement by parents/guardians is incredibly positive to a developing child/adult and usually welcomed. However many the hours in a school day, how many subjects do kids these days find useful or relate to? Maths and English are essential, History is too. Business and a language are invaluable (especially if a foreign language), so I'm sure there's time available for 30 minutes of meditation, 30 - 60 mins of sexual education and 30 mins of programming a week. They could of course carry on their topic of interest outside of teaching hours, if that is their interest and focus.

If I had that as a child I'd be a far more well adjusted adult in my early twenties than I was.

the_syco

armaghlad wrote: »

School teaches you how to prepare for exams and not much else.

School teaches you that cramming as much information into your head is important, but not how to do it.

uch

Bollocks, it prepares us for nothing, I went to an all boys secondary school, and the visions of lads **** in the jax will haunt me forever,

beks101

Money management and mental health would be the big ones I'd say.

The amount of otherwise intelligent people I know who don't have a saving account and live pay check to pay check despite earning a decent wage is staggering. I find myself even at 30 struggling with the concept of turning my savings into investments and/or my own home and the whole thing feels a bit daunting.

The pressing one would be mental health as it's a lot more life and death. I feel the message needs to go beyond the usual "talk to your family and friends" rhetoric to actual practical advice on recognizing symptoms and where to go to get help. Taking social media with a pinch of salt and having a real life that goes beyond trying to out-instagram your peers would be a big one too. I reckon it'll have a major impact on kids' mental wellbeing in the years to come.

Mister Vain

eet fuk wrote: »

It's as though people really don't understand the importance of maths. It's so important for our absract thinking/logic.

The majority of maths is completely useless. I haven't used or needed it since I finished school.

eet fuk

Mister Vain wrote: »

The majority of maths is completely useless. I haven't used or needed it since I finished school.

Well obviously if you're not an engineer/scientist then you haven't been plowing through equations. I just think that it may have instilled a mindset that you can apply to situations not involving numbers. It's a way of thinking as much as anything else.
I happened to find maths very enjoyable/useful, and I would have been delighted if my school got rid of some of the uninterested messers in my class though. If they wanted to go and learn about taxes instead, let them. Like I said, you can teach yourself about taxes and savings very easily if you're bothered - a mathematical education will help you do this.

Buona Fortuna

Mister Vain wrote: »

The majority of maths is completely useless. I haven't used or needed it since I finished school.

If a car accelerates from stationary at 2ms2, how fast will it be travelling after 100m

galljga1

Deleted User wrote: »

I met my wife there when we were 12. She was, by far and away, the most attractive woman in the class, the one everyone worshipped. I was, in fairness, no great shakes with the ladies. Eventually through friendship I wore her down and we first kissed when we were 17. Married at 29, child at 40.

So yeah, school brought me the best thing in my life. Did it teach me much? Meh, I got a good Leaving Cert, did what I wanted at Uni, blah blah blah job and mortgage and the not so important stuff. But it gave me the best thing ever.

That you Forrest?

Olishi4

galljga1 wrote: »

That you Forrest?

No dark sarcasm in the classroom please

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I met my wife there when we were 12. She was, by far and away, the most attractive woman in the class, the one everyone worshipped. I was, in fairness, no great shakes with the ladies. Eventually through friendship I wore her down and we first kissed when we were 17. Married at 29, child at 40.

So yeah, school brought me the best thing in my life. Did it teach me much? Meh, I got a good Leaving Cert, did what I wanted at Uni, blah blah blah job and mortgage and the not so important stuff. But it gave me the best thing ever.

Ah, the wonder years.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

I think school nowadays is a bit 'one size fits all'. Everything is judged by how you do in the leaving cert which is actually a narrow and limited measure of intelligence and abilities. I'd prefer to see more focus on things like creativity, group work , practical application etc so that everyone gets opportunities to develop. The problem is that going on to 3rd level is seen as a must nowadays instead of one of many options.

Eugene Norman

School and education isn't about practical subjects but about a transfer of knowledge and cultural transmission. It's also about finding talent. Maths might be useless to you in work but it's keeping aeroplanes flying and bridges from collapsing and much more. It also has a non practical side like a lot of human creativity.

We could teach programming in school but I doubt companies would hire school leavers, not without proof of some ability (maybe GitHub). After all there are self taught programmers out there now, it used to be that that was all you had back in the early days. Still employers want a degree.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Eugene Norman wrote: »

School and education isn't about practical subjects but about a transfer of knowledge and cultural transmission. It's also about finding talent. Maths might be useless to you in work but it's keeping aeroplanes flying and bridges from collapsing and much more. It also has a non practical side like a lot of human creativity.

We could teach programming in school but I doubt companies would hire school leavers, not without proof of some ability (maybe GitHub). After all there are self taught programmers out there now, it used to be that that was all you had back in the early days. Still employers want a degree.

But talent comes in many different forms. It's not all about the academic. Yes you need to learn English, maths, history, a language and so on. But schools should also recognise the achievements of the sporty, creative or otherwise talented kids and give due importance to things like teamwork, leadership, and innovation. They are all important considerations when deciding careers and the people who do best in the workplace aren't always the straight A students. Different jobs need different abilities.

Eugene Norman

Hank Vast Baboon wrote: »

But talent comes in many different forms. It's not all about the academic. Yes you need to learn English, maths, history, a language and so on. But schools should also recognise the achievements of the sporty, creative or otherwise talented kids and give due importance to things like teamwork, leadership, and innovation. They are all important considerations when deciding careers and the people who do best in the workplace aren't always the straight A students. Different jobs need different abilities.

Education isn't just about jobs.

Leadership will manifest anyway (you're right about that, A students work for B students with leadership abilities), I'm not sure that we can teach innovation. And most schools do in fact reward the sporty.

Mesrine65

BoatMad wrote: »

I think schools should focus on the three Rs , then stream and separate kids with different aptitudes and abilities

but I know this isn't popular !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education

genericguy

Hank Vast Baboon wrote: »

I think school nowadays is a bit 'one size fits all'. Everything is judged by how you do in the leaving cert which is actually a narrow and limited measure of intelligence and abilities. I'd prefer to see more focus on things like creativity, group work , practical application etc so that everyone gets opportunities to develop. The problem is that going on to 3rd level is seen as a must nowadays instead of one of many options.

The government is trying to implement this but the teachers are freaking because it will be proven that they do nothing for about 5 and a half years of the secondary cycle.

spurious

The Established LC is very outdated.
All the things the OP mentioned are covered in the Leaving Cert. Applied, but I will wait and see the response that gets here.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Robsweezie wrote: »

i would agree to a certain extent it does. dress code, dealing with authority, punctuality, respect and manners are encouraged/enforced. certain subjects like home ec can teach practical skills in the home.

theres a lot of joking about ramming quadratic equations and square roots down our throats yet not educating on real life matters like taxes, budgeting money, relationships, mental health etc.


what do you think?

School does not teach you how to deal with authority - it teaches you how to submit to authority. There's never really any emphasis on teaching negotiation or conflict resolution. Respect and manners I learnt from my parents, thank you very much. I had no respect for most of the teachers in my school because, put simply, they never did anything to earn it. They just showed up and expected it, and that's not how it works - sorry.

As for the practical side of things, most of the necessary skills are learn't in primary school. After that, it's mostly superficial. You can argue basic problem solving techniques, but then why use advanced maths? Why not just actually teach basic problem solving techniques and lateral thinking?

There's also an incredible amount of non-essential stuff being paraded as "necessary" under the brand of cumpulsory.

One eyed Jack

entropi wrote: »

Nurturing and encouragement by parents/guardians is incredibly positive to a developing child/adult and usually welcomed. However many the hours in a school day, how many subjects do kids these days find useful or relate to? Maths and English are essential, History is too. Business and a language are invaluable (especially if a foreign language), so I'm sure there's time available for 30 minutes of meditation, 30 - 60 mins of sexual education and 30 mins of programming a week. They could of course carry on their topic of interest outside of teaching hours, if that is their interest and focus.

If I had that as a child I'd be a far more well adjusted adult in my early twenties than I was.

But the question is does school prepare you for life, not just does school prepare you for a career, or does school prepare you for your 20's, or does school prepare you to fill out your self-assessment tax returns?

Those subjects you mention are subjects that would have been advantageous to you, but school isn't all about you, it's about every student in the school, providing all students with the basic education that gives them the knowledge and skills to develop in many different areas. It's literally giving all students a basic set of transferable skills and knowledgeable that they can apply in any arena.

They can choose to specialise in a particular area after secondary education, by which time the aim is at least that they would have developed an ability to do so having scratched the surface of the various areas in primary and secondary education.

eet fuk

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

As for the practical side of things, most of the necessary skills are learn't in primary school. After that, it's mostly superficial. You can argue basic problem solving techniques, but then why use advanced maths? Why not just actually teach basic problem solving techniques and lateral thinking?

The maths taught in school is certainly not advanced. It is a subject that many people struggle with no doubt, but I just think that's more down to the teacher and the methods than the actual subject matter.

Out of interest, how would you teach basic problem solving and lateral thinking?

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

School does not teach you how to deal with authority - it teaches you how to submit to authority. There's never really any emphasis on teaching negotiation or conflict resolution. Respect and manners I learnt from my parents, thank you very much. I had no respect for most of the teachers in my school because, put simply, they never did anything to earn it. They just showed up and expected it, and that's not how it works - sorry.

That sounds like an odd contradiction?

School is exactly where you learn about negotiation and conflict resolution and respect for authority, and that's exactly how it works. Teachers aren't your parents, they're teachers, they are professionals, who have earned the qualifications to occupy the position they're in. Your parents had sex, no qualifications necessary to occupy the position they're in.

As for the practical side of things, most of the necessary skills are learn't in primary school. After that, it's mostly superficial. You can argue basic problem solving techniques, but then why use advanced maths? Why not just actually teach basic problem solving techniques and lateral thinking?

Primary school gives children the foundation skills to allow them to tackle more advanced material across a range of subjects. Of course it's absolutely necessary to understand the foundational concepts before you can tackle the more advanced concepts, drawing on skills and knowledgeable you've learned in other areas.

There's also an incredible amount of non-essential stuff being paraded as "necessary" under the brand of cumpulsory.

Non-essential from your perspective perhaps, but compulsory because those concepts are considered essential from other people's perspective.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

eet fuk wrote: »

The maths taught in school is certainly not advanced. It is a subject that many people struggle with no doubt, but I just think that's more down to the teacher and the methods than the actual subject matter.

Out of interest, how would you teach basic problem solving and lateral thinking?

I meant advanced in terms of necessary. Also, Leaving Cert: certainly honours, probably pass.

The problem is it never actually teaches the application side. I remember studying theorms in second year and I got it, understood it, but didn't see how the logic could be transfered into something more useful.

How would you teach problem solving? Well present problems, obviously and see how the students figure them out. But make them relevant. There's no point in teaching kids how to handle quadratic equations and then not showing them how to trasnfer the knowledge they learn into every-day life.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That sounds like an odd contradiction?

I respected them in terms of I was mannerly and never (ok - rarely:o) caused problems.

I never truly respected them in terms of looking up to them or appreciating them.

School is exactly where you learn about negotiation and conflict resolution and respect for authority, and that's exactly how it works. Teachers aren't your parents, they're teachers, they are professionals, who have earned the qualifications to occupy the position they're in. Your parents had sex, no qualifications necessary to occupy the position they're in.

This makes no sense: because teachers have qualifications, I'm autmatically learning conflict resolution? Sorry, no. If they bring in rules and the students disagree with, the students have no choice but to go along with it. Schools don't see negotiate with students.

Primary school gives children the foundation skills to allow them to tackle more advanced material across a range of subjects. Of course it's absolutely necessary to understand the foundational concepts before you can tackle the more advanced concepts, drawing on skills and knowledgeable you've learned in other areas.

Doesn't disagrere with what I wrote.

Non-essential from your perspective perhaps, but compulsory because those concepts are considered essential from other people's perspective.

Such as speaking Irish? Two years studying King Lear?

Eugene Norman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I meant advanced in terms of necessary. Also, Leaving Cert: certainly honours, probably pass.

The problem is it never actually teaches the application side. I remember studying theorms in second year and I got it, understood it, but didn't see how the logic could be transfered into something more useful.

How would you teach problem solving? Well present problems, obviously and see how the students figure them out. But make them relevant. There's no point in teaching kids how to handle quadratic equations and then not showing them how to trasnfer the knowledge they learn into every-day life.

There's applied maths and physics, and the quadratic equations are useful in everyday life if you have to use them. Like, you know, scientists.

Probably many people could do foundation mathematics without much harm to their future career. Mathematics is taught to find the next generation of scientists and engineers and even (God forbid) theoretical mathematics which has no "use" for now.

(Mathematics is mostly useful, but it can also be abstract. Civilised societies train abstract thought. )

Eugene Norman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I respected them in terms of I was mannerly and never (ok - rarely:o) caused problems.

I never truly respected them in terms of looking up to them or appreciating them.



This makes no sense: because teachers have qualifications, I'm autmatically learning conflict resolution? Sorry, no. If they bring in rules and the students disagree with, the students have no choice but to go along with it. Schools don't see negotiate with students.



Doesn't disagrere with what I wrote.



Such as speaking Irish? Two years studying King Lear?

The latter two are about education as cultural transmission systems. Not all education is practical, it's about knowledge.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eugene Norman wrote: »

There's applied maths and physics, and the quadratic equations are useful in everyday life if you have to use them. Like, you know, scientists.

It's still part of the syllabus and still does not prepare you for later life.

Probably many people could do foundation mathematics without much harm to their future career. Mathematics is taught to find the next generation of scientists and engineers and even (God forbid) theoretical mathematics which has no "use" for now.

(Mathematics is mostly useful, but it can also be abstract. Civilised societies train abstract thought. )

But does this prepare people for later life? And not just for a specific professsion.

Eugene Norman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's still part of the syllabus and still does not prepare you for later life.

It clearly prepares scientists, engineers, statisticians, economists and theoretical mathematicans for life.

But does this prepare people for later life? And not just for a specific professsion.

You're the one who wants education to be training not me.

I get the impression you think all education should be home economics with a bit of civics thrown in,and some practical courses on business English and writing a cv. We wouldn't need 14 years for that.

eet fuk

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How would you teach problem solving? Well present problems, obviously and see how the students figure them out. But make them relevant. There's no point in teaching kids how to handle quadratic equations and then not showing them how to trasnfer the knowledge they learn into every-day life.

This approach could result in people being very good at solving particular problems, and it's difficult to encourage innovative thinking that way.

The idea is to teach people to teach themselves. If you can overcome your fear and difficulties towards a subject that you dislike, that is one of the best life lessons you can learn. School really can't cater for every individual, but it can give you the tools to develop your own unique way of thinking. In my mind that is a lot better for society than to have people who spent years being taught things that they could have taught themselves, and who have only done things that they want to do. That's not life.

indioblack

Robsweezie wrote: »

i would agree to a certain extent it does. dress code, dealing with authority, punctuality, respect and manners are encouraged/enforced. certain subjects like home ec can teach practical skills in the home.

theres a lot of joking about ramming quadratic equations and square roots down our throats yet not educating on real life matters like taxes, budgeting money, relationships, mental health etc.


what do you think?

I don't think it does.
I went through the unstructured confusion that was the secondary modern school education era in England in the 1960's.
Left school as a very immature 15 year-old and started working on a building site.
Now that was a revelation about the reality of the world!

Savvy student

One of the biggest problems is students being spoon fed information which will never happen in real life. Most classes consist of copying notes from the board and learning them off by heart. Students lose the ability to think, form opinions and figure stuff out for themselves. Imagine an English class where instead of copying down the teacher's opinion/understanding of Yeat's poetry, students could discuss for themselves and form their own opinions. Thinking for yourself is an important skill which many schools neglect to teach.

Eugene Norman

Savvy student wrote: »

One of the biggest problems is students being spoon fed information which will never happen in real life. Most classes consist of copying notes from the board and learning them off by heart. Students lose the ability to think, form opinions and figure stuff out for themselves. Imagine an English class where instead of copying down the teacher's opinion/understanding of Yeat's poetry, students could discuss for themselves and form their own opinions. Thinking for yourself is an important skill which many schools neglect to teach.

Depends on the school.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I respected them in terms of I was mannerly and never (ok - rarely:o) caused problems.

I never truly respected them in terms of looking up to them or appreciating them.

Clearly. That doesn't mean that the school itself doesn't give students an understanding of authority, it just means you never learned to have respect for authority. The teacher is by law in a position of authority. The fact that you had no respect for that position means that your parents didn't teach you a whole lot about respect for authority as you still believe that's not the way it works.

This makes no sense: because teachers have qualifications, I'm autmatically learning conflict resolution? Sorry, no. If they bring in rules and the students disagree with, the students have no choice but to go along with it. Schools don't see negotiate with students.

No, because teachers are in a position of authority, that position commands respect. If you have a conflict with another student on the school yard for example, and you cannot negotiate and resolve your differences amicably, and the conflict escalates to the point where you get a bloody nose, then you're taught to report that to the teacher, who is in a position of authority and is responsible for dealing with the conflict. That's how you learn about negotiation, conflict resolution and authority.

Such as speaking Irish? Two years studying King Lear?

Yes?

This reminds me of entropi's point that we're becoming more dependent on technology so we should be introducing more software development skills in schools because that's where all the jobs are. Become even more dependent upon technology so we don't have to use our brains? That's as bad as Pat Kenny suggesting that we only need to use google! :pac:

AtomicHorror

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This reminds me of entropi's point that we're becoming more dependent on technology so we should be introducing more software development skills in schools because that's where all the jobs are. Become even more dependent upon technology so we don't have to use our brains? That's as bad as Pat Kenny suggesting that we only need to use google! :pac:

I think the "dependence on technology" ship sailed about 7000 years ago, or possibly earlier. Should we be teaching people survivalism or making sure our technology is robust enough that it's unlikely to fail catastrophically?

All that being said, I'm not sure about the idea of teaching kids coding. I intend to do it with my own kids, but I don't have much faith that it'll still be a useful skill by the time they're old enough for it to be relevant.

Bored_lad

BoatMad wrote: »

I think schools should focus on the three Rs , then stream and separate kids with different aptitudes and abilities

but I know this isn't popular !

The school I attend used to do this a from second year onwards up until around when I came into the school when the department of education basically told them to stop and have mixed ability classes. They still do it for leaving cert however.

Bored_lad

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I meant advanced in terms of necessary. Also, Leaving Cert: certainly honours, probably pass.

The problem is it never actually teaches the application side. I remember studying theorms in second year and I got it, understood it, but didn't see how the logic could be transfered into something more useful.

How would you teach problem solving? Well present problems, obviously and see how the students figure them out. But make them relevant. There's no point in teaching kids how to handle quadratic equations and then not showing them how to trasnfer the knowledge they learn into every-day life.

This is the point of project maths it more probpem based and focues on some real life applications of things you are learning.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eugene Norman wrote: »

It clearly prepares scientists, engineers, statisticians, economists and theoretical mathematicans for life.

Never said it didn't. But unless everyone beccomes scientist, engineer, economist or so on, then no - it doesn't.

You're the one who wants education to be training not me.

I get the impression you think all education should be home economics with a bit of civics thrown in,and some practical courses on business English and writing a cv. We wouldn't need 14 years for that.

I'm just answering the question posed by the OP.

I don't know where you got this impression. If it were more in line with the above, I may be inclined to argue that education does prepare you for later life, but it doesn't. Also: "all education"...?

eet fuk wrote: »

This approach could result in people being very good at solving particular problems, and it's difficult to encourage innovative thinking that way.

The idea is to teach people to teach themselves. If you can overcome your fear and difficulties towards a subject that you dislike, that is one of the best life lessons you can learn. School really can't cater for every individual, but it can give you the tools to develop your own unique way of thinking. In my mind that is a lot better for society than to have people who spent years being taught things that they could have taught themselves, and who have only done things that they want to do. That's not life.

It's not a fear or a dislike - it's a disinterest. And when you lose interest, it;s very difficult to motivate someone to teach themselves.