Does school prepare us for later life?

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The Established LC is very outdated.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.

eet fuk

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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.

Well, I was disinterested in plenty of things in school too, but I found that my curiosity was rekindled later in life. In that sense, I'm glad that I was exposed to such a large range of topics in my school years. It meant that I knew that this stuff is out there, just waiting to be learned.

I wanted to be a musician from when I was 14 until I was 20. So I went to college to study music. Turned out that I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would, and I preferred to keep it only as a hobby. Lucky for me, I studied maths, physics, economics, French so it was easy to re-assess my situation and start over. If I had only learned music and taxes and stuff that I thought would benefit me later in life when I was 15, I'd be stuck. Imagine having to learn something like algebra/French from scratch in your 20s - it can be done for sure, but it's a hell of a lot easier if you already have a decent grounding in it.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Eugene Norman wrote: »

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.

Yes but kids who are innovative or good with people often don't have that recognised as a useful skill. How many of us have found ourselves working with highly intelligent types who have no people skills, no concept of teamwork, no imagination, cant manage their time etc. Yet according to the school system and how it places its emphasis they're the successful people who will do well.

There just needs to be a more balanced approach. We're too focussed on academic qualifications and ignore all the other things that need to be encouraged in school,

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

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.

Respect is not something that can be taught - it's earnt.

Having respect for the position is one thing - having respect for the person holding it is another. If the person holding it is not inspiring you or is condescending to you or fails to inspire a sense of trust or belief or confidence, then I don't see how one could automatically "respect" the person.

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:

I fail to see the connection? I don't believe I ever mentioned technology or subjects for the sole purpose of jobs...?

One eyed Jack

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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?

Not sure what you're saying there AH?

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.

Teaching children the basic principles of software development is always going to a useful skill to have that could be applied in any number of different disciplines. But it can be taught in coderdojo classes up and down the country. The thing is though that not everyone is going to have a natural aptitude for software development. Introducing programming languages in schools - you're going to have the majority of children coming home from school like gibbering idiots :pac:

Seriously though, that's just preparing children for careers, it's not preparing them for life, where some children might want to go into the Arts, some children might want to go into outdoor careers, some children might want to go into STEM or social care, but having them focus on the one specific type of skill they excel at as children, gives them no transferable skills as adults. If Dilbert doesn't like his 4x4 cubicle, he's going to find it very hard to break out of it because he developed no transferable skills in childhood education.

As an aside, I wouldn't write off current programming languages at all as irrelevant by the time your children are old enough to learn them. I still dabble in COBOL every so often while I'm teaching my son Java, even though he has ambitions to become a lift engineer! I don't understand it, but he could spend hours engrossed in watching YouTube videos all about elevators, escalators, lifts, etc, from manufacturer specs and intros, to documentaries about famous elevators! Bizarre, but he's happy! :pac:

entropi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Very true. School is for everyone in the building, and just because a subject may have been helpful to me, it might not be good for someone else. The reality with having to wait until your twenties to specialise in something, is that a lot of people in their late teens or twenties who have recently left school or college still don't have a handle on some fundamental tasks in life like proper budgeting, work ethic and job preparation skills, first aid etc.

I don't believe schooling itself prepares you for many aspects of post-schooling life, you are left to figure those out, whilst school itself tries to prepare you for college or a career.

eet fuk

Also, does anyone here actually think they would pay attention and be more interested in a class called 'Taxes for 20 year olds', or 'How to decide which politician to vote for' when they were in secondary school?

There ain't no way!

entropi

eet fuk wrote: »

Also, does anyone here actually think they would pay attention and be more interested in a class called 'Taxes for 20 year olds', or 'How to decide which politician to vote for' when they were in secondary school?

There ain't no way!

You could integrate personal taxation into a business studies module at some point. It doesn't have to be labelled as a taxation-specific class, but could very well work inside an appropriate module.

evolving_doors

Hank Vast Baboon wrote: »

Yes but kids who are innovative or good with people often don't have that recognised as a useful skill. How many of us have found ourselves working with highly intelligent types who have no people skills, no concept of teamwork, no imagination, cant manage their time etc. Yet according to the school system and how it places its emphasis they're the successful people who will do well.

There just needs to be a more balanced approach. We're too focussed on academic qualifications and ignore all the other things that need to be encouraged in school,

Sure, there's the exams to get through but I think the assumption thrown out by the media is that it's all rote learning these days in school with students unable to think for themselves. But yet yesterday I watched one news piece about a transition year student who saved someone's life after just learning CPR in her school. Then on the Late Late we saw examples of highly creative students taking part in the Junk Kouture competition.

Yes they 'need' to be encouraged in school, but quite often ,they 'are' being encouraged in school. It's just you rarely get to hear about them.

Does school prepare us for later life?
No it does not, nor should it be the sole preserve of schools to do so. Nor should it be the sole preserve of subject learning to incorporate it.

Preparing for life takes place between lessons, at home, amongst friends, amongst family, online, with hobbies, rambling around the countryside, mooching on street corners talking about stuff, local GAA. And I'd even venture to say that that actually is life.

You'ld often hear teenagers moan about certain subjects (maths/Irish mostly !!) "shur when will we ever use this in life." But yet they'd have no qualms about playing Call of Duty for 4 hours till 2am in the morning, they'd never throw down the Joypad and say 'oh I'll never use this in life I quit'. So yes I would love to see video gaming on the curriculum as there's plenty of strategising and problem solving going on there too. So you see there's loads we could be sticking on the curriculum.... but the mistake is in thinking that all of these things can be taught with a view to living through your future job.

The Pheasant2

A lot of people in this thread are making calls for things that are already a part of the curriculum.

Taxes are taught fairly extensively within maths (at all levels), business studies and economics.

Budgeting etc is taught in Maths and Business studies.

Things like how to write a letter or structure a CV are all taught in English and business.

Cookery and other practical skills taught in Home ec'

Nutrition etc taught in science, SPHE and Home ec

eet fuk

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

A lot of people in this thread are making calls for things that are already a part of the curriculum.

Taxes are taught fairly extensively within maths (at all levels), business studies and economics.

Budgeting etc is taught in Maths and Business studies.

Things like how to write a letter or structure a CV are all taught in English and business.

Cookery and other practical skills taught in Home ec'

Nutrition etc taught in science, SPHE and Home ec

Exactly.
You'd swear 12 - 18 just didn't give a toss about things like that at the time. Amazing isn't it.

It reminds me of that Simpson's episode where Bart is confused by the Roman numerals on the tiger cages!