So, my friend and I were discussing the idea of education, in that we were discussing the current form of education methods. Currently we educate our youth by sending them to school where they are taught the information which we deem valuable in a sort of assembly-line like fashion. (We start by teaching addition, then we go to subtraction, ect) This method seems outdated especially with internet, where all the information which we and our children could ever want is at our fingertips. However, even though we have access to this knowledge, we don't use it. (For general education, such as Khan academy ect....)

So my question is, why? If it's a problem with a lack of motivation, how do we motivate people to want to learn? How are education systems in other countries such as China, where the students go to school for long hours, structured, and what is so different about them? How can we change our methods to make kids want to learn? Or do we even want to?

Changing the current system of education in any country could have a rather significant impact and cause excessive fluctuations in that country's economy (best example would be present day Japan and how they're trying to reform it), so it is a way more complex topic to talk about than you might think.

I'll just mark it here so I get notified of posts in the future, as it seems to be an interesting thing that could potentially spark a nice conversation~

I just want to say overall. I rather wish schools were/or have courses that teaches daily life stuff such as like taxes, survival, etc . I can understand that schools follow guidelines as well as teachers who follow Lesson Plans. Though even though I find this acceptable, I do ask what would happen if people who don't use or even don't need this logic. I mean.....if I dropped a student in the woods and tell him to survive with his only knowledge of schooling. He would obviously freak out not knowing what to do.

We need to make an interactive environment to make the students more interested in learning. Let's put something in an example.

Homework, Yes, homework just turned into an assessment on what you have learned rather than it's original purpose, to be a learning experience. The biggest issue in homework is that it doesn't have instantaneous feedback. That's the biggest reason why students are, sometimes, bored to do homework. The biggest answer this particular is to make a program where teachers can monitor their homeworks. Instead of just giving an assignment on their notebooks or books, they can just distribute a modified learning program where internet access is required. While the student does the homework designated by the teacher, the teacher, simultaneously, observes and motivates the child to retry wrong things. Same in the tutorial system on what we have. But this "Tutorial System" will take advantage of technology

21th Century Skills. Again, we learn this in games. Creativity, Critical Thinking, Collaboration, ETC. We learn this in games. We learn creativity from creating such as Minecraft or osu! The edit thing. We learn critical thinking by, again, osu! and other MOBA genres out there. WE learn Collaboration by talking to others. Dating Sims, such and such. I'm not saying that we should strategize our builds in battle, but we see this as a basic concept. We can learn Creativity in Arts, Critical Thinking in Mental Math, Collaboration in Group works, etc.

TL;DR - Games can benefit our learning system by integrating it in our current system and taking advantage of its portable, flexible platforms

That is why there are so many branches of education, especially tertiary education, to go to. It expands out so that there is a system that caters to what you can do and want to do. Polytechnic, College, University, International Baccalaureate, you can go more into detail in the fields of study you are interested in when you get older. All the generic knowledge that are taught earlier on, they might seem like you won't really use them in the future, or even in your future studies, but it gets the general idea of studying and learning ingrained into the students, it's about the learning process. Many systems and courses are being introduced to cater to all the different needs of people so I see that it is fine, just have to wait for what you want to be implemented at where you are, if it's not already been done so.

sanguisinvia wrote:

how do we motivate people to want to learn?

There's a school somewhere in the world (forgot the country >_>) where EVERY class is optional; the students can literally go outside and play all day for all year without getting penalized. Seems like a great idea, right? Well, it's proven that the human brain is always hungry for knowledge; so eventually, after about a week or two, the students will eventually get bored from playing and start going to classes.

If that isn't something, then I dunno what is...

I don't get people who are like "school should only be about life skills", mostly because there's classes sort of like that, like Home Economics and Drivers Ed and stuff, and people find that pretty stupid. Plus, a lot of lessons can just be like, told, rather than taught. There are a lot of mathematical things, but I've managed to learn a lot of those in math classes (such as calculating interest, functional algebra, finding percentages of stuff, etc), and the stuff I don't know, it's not super hard to learn. People will be like "wow school didn't teach me how to balance a checkbook" like seriously just write your purchases in the book and keep track of it (and most companies do that for you on an online banking system, so checkbooks are mostly just for extra security, and I personally don't use one.)

The problem with a lot of schooling is that people want everything to be custom tailored to be as relaxing as possible without putting in effort. A lot of kids that I talk to complain about being bad at school never do tutoring, and they never talk in class, which is the worst thing you could do in a class if you're struggling. They'll spend a lot of time hanging out with friends or passing time on the internet, and they'll be like "Oh yeah I'm smart, i just don't do xxx" or "Oh yeah the system just doesn't work for me", but in actuality, a lot of problems lie from a lack of effort. I did tutoring at my school back when I was a part of CSF, and I maybe got to tutor like, 2-3 kids. I did about 4 tutoring sessions. Sure, there were multiple people, and I was the music guy, so I was low priority on getting people sent to me, but still. Kids complain a lot about school, but they're forgetting that like, there's so many opportunities for help.

People are also being little shits about education because they're like "wow life after you graduate it forces you to do xxx and xxx why can't it just later." Because these end up being the people that also complain that school shouldn't take so long and other stuff. Like, there's tailoring to needs, and then there's bullshit. Just because you spent all of your time on tumblr talking about how much you want to ruffle David Tennant's feathers instead of exploring your interests, doesn't mean that the world is cruel, it means that you didn't have the right motivation, and you're facing the consequences, and you're blaming others for it. I had an idea of what I was gonna do when I hit high school. I wanted to do something with music, and I changed around ideas, but now I'm going to school for Music Education, with an interest in Music Therapy that I may pursue if life throws me the right cards.

And if you want a sort of tangent, education is gonna hurt a LOT of it ever goes to a focus on online schools. I'm not just saying this as a music educator, but as a person that has done online school. It's pretty pointless. There's VERY few resources to help you, it's easy to just find answers, and it hurts social skills as well. Same with homeschooling, especially when parents do it who aren't really qualified to teach at all. I understand that situations happen, but if the focus goes to that, the quality of teaching is gonna go downhill.

One of my BIGGEST pet peeves about the school system is that there's a whole "You go on no matter what". Here's how a lot of kids end up going through school

1) They fail to understand basic concepts in elementary school
2) The parents refuse to believe that their child is doing bad, and there's no real GPA barrier to stop the kid from moving on
3) Kids goes on
4) Kid might get put in remedial classes, but never get stopped to review concepts
5) Kid goes to high school in remedial classes
6) Kid does bad and ends up having to go to night school
7) Kid fails and breaks everything

Wanna know why? Because there's no standard to keep kids on a good track. It's all based on the parents, and a lot of kids come from households that don't really support education or know whats best. And that's why kids struggle in high school.

Keep the kids back early. A good foundation is what you need for success in the future. Who cares if you get held back? If you're struggling, its helpful to try again and get a review.

im gonna stop before this gets longer

We really don't have a flaw in the current system of education. If we do, it wouldn't be something major. The problem lies within the people. The way many schools hire teachers seem like they are really desperate. "We don't care if you don't know anything! Come here here and teach a bunch of kids!" They just shout this at everyone's faces. And some even allow 60 year olds to keep on teaching despite knowing that their memory and pretty much everything else in their body is deteriorating. The world is just getting too big for us. It's getting harder and harder to find people with the skill and determination to teach, so they just go with whatever they could grab.

I know most of you, if not all, were pretty much blind to how the system of education worked back when you were kids. It's pretty much the same with everybody else. I thought that we went to school because everyone else went to school, and that it was an obligation. I even wanted to stop going to school because I thought I would be one special kid if I did. I was wrong. The teachers fail to entertain us, and I understand them too, knowing that they have to interact with 50 kids all at the same time. When the government makes changes to the system of education, they only give notice to the students and just put aside the teachers. They "want the students to be in a safe learning environment" and "want them to be able to carry the next generation" and the changes they make just ends up making things much more complicated. If the government is reading this thread right now, please stop spoiling the students.

As a reference, it should be established what country this thread is referring to. Schools are different in a lot of countries. I assumed USA because the thread maker is from the USA, but its better to establish which one.

FlyingNeko wrote:

We really don't have a flaw in the current system of education. If we do, it wouldn't be something major. The problem lies within the people. The way many schools hire teachers seem like they are really desperate. "We don't care if you don't know anything! Come here here and teach a bunch of kids!" They just shout this at everyone's faces. And some even allow 60 year olds to keep on teaching despite knowing that their memory and pretty much everything else in their body is deteriorating. The world is just getting too big for us. It's getting harder and harder to find people with the skill and determination to teach, so they just go with whatever they could grab.

I know most of you, if not all, were pretty much blind to how the system of education worked back when you were kids. It's pretty much the same with everybody else. I thought that we went to school because everyone else went to school, and that it was an obligation. I even wanted to stop going to school because I thought I would be one special kid if I did. I was wrong. The teachers fail to entertain us, and I understand them too, knowing that they have to interact with 50 kids all at the same time. When the government makes changes to the system of education, they only give notice to the students and just put aside the teachers. They "want the students to be in a safe learning environment" and "want them to be able to carry the next generation" and the changes they make just ends up making things much more complicated. If the government is reading this thread right now, please stop spoiling the students.

The teachers aren't doing what they're supposed to do. To engage learning. I know, it's a hard thing to engage/motivate students to learn. But take this as an example. Why are you motivated playing video games. Video games, in fact, teach you ALOT of stuff. Then why studying often falls to the darker side of the world? Why is it classified as a gloomy way to learn. Because teachers lack experience implementation. It's a common thing to learn via experiences. How did you learned to play an insane song, experience. How did you learn how to photoshop, experience. How did you learn to play osu!, experience. Without this essential tool in our education system, our students might crumble down and we might fall down to a pit of forced learning measures.

Holy shit, a serious thread.

CDFA wrote:

As a reference, it should be established what country this thread is referring to. Schools are different in a lot of countries. I assumed USA because the thread maker is from the USA, but its better to establish which one.

Why don't we make it global? It would be nice to learn about other country's education and the problem that comes with it.

Sonatora wrote:

Homework, Yes, homework just turned into an assessment on what you have learned rather than it's original purpose, to be a learning experience. The biggest issue in homework is that it doesn't have instantaneous feedback. That's the biggest reason why students are, sometimes, bored to do homework. The biggest answer this particular is to make a program where teachers can monitor their homeworks. Instead of just giving an assignment on their notebooks or books, they can just distribute a modified learning program where internet access is required. While the student does the homework designated by the teacher, the teacher, simultaneously, observes and motivates the child to retry wrong things. Same in the tutorial system on what we have. But this "Tutorial System" will take advantage of technology.

This might help, but I can't see how it would be implemented in a country like mine where most students access to the internet is trough their smartphones, let alone other countries with worse situation.

Sonatora wrote:

TL;DR - Games can benefit our learning system by integrating it in our current system and taking advantage of its portable, flexible platforms

I do agree with this. I'm a living example. I learn most of my English from games (and probably Japanese if I'm not too lazy).
I know that some educational games exist (I've played some), but the problem is these games are not challenging enough as a game, and ended up making the player bored and lose interest.

As a student about to go to college, I think the problem with teaching at high school and below at the moment is how the subjects are delivered to the students (I'm referring to natural science here). Most teachers explain stuff the formal way, using official definitions of things. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's boring. Use this as an example :

Wikipedia wrote:

The Doppler effect (or Doppler shift), named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who proposed it in 1842 in Prague, is the change in frequency of a wave (or other periodic event) for an observer moving relative to its source.

It's not really super hard and requires a genius to understand. But compare it to this (my version of definition),

piruchan wrote:

Doppler effect is when someone's voice sounds louder when he/she is close to you.

It's not really correct, but that will help students get the concept down.

Most teachers prefer the Wikipedia definition, but it's boring and harder to understand for students. Another benefits of my simple definition is it makes remembering the equation for Doppler effect easier (assuming you know basic math), and can even answer silly multiple choice questions without the need to count (I won't write it here because not everyone like equations, but I will if people asked me to). Teachers for natural science subjects need to do this for high school and below.

But what about the official definition? Well, students with enough interest usually going to learn it by themselves and they won't have a hard time understanding it. Leave the official definition for university.

Before some people says, "But students can choose what subjects they want". I believe that is true in some countries, but in Indonesia, you don't. Students up to 9th grade have their subjects pre-set by the government. It doesn't mean that you can choose subjects once you get to 10th grade. You get to select which "major" (I don't know what to call it) you want, natural science, social science, or language. The subjects on those "majors" are pre-set as well. Sure, you will lose some, but you will still get what the government considered "related".

Done for now, I have to go to sleep. We need more serious threads like this.

Woohoo, my longest post so far.

Sonatora wrote:

The teachers aren't doing what they're supposed to do. To engage learning. I know, it's a hard thing to engage/motivate students to learn.

I find this very interesting, because this is the point which my friend reached as well. It is a crucial point of a teacher's job to motivate/engage the students, however, in a large classroom environment with many varieties of kids, how do you keep them all entertained? Do you impletment a sort of ranking system, where you rely on the kid's iinternal motivation of competition? Do you make the whole thing a game to them? (create a large videogame which teaches them the concepts of schooling) And as CDFA pointed out, social skills are also a very important skill which is developed in school.

CDFA wrote:

There's VERY few resources to help you, it's easy to just find answers, and it hurts social skills as well

Here's another thought, if we were to allow all the students to be able to progress at different rates, do you think that this might be able to help motivate students to learn, in that we would no longer hold some students back?

The topic about what homework is also got me thinking.

Sonatora wrote:

Homework, Yes, homework just turned into an assessment on what you have learned rather than it's original purpose, to be a learning experience.

This is very true, however, I have an online homework submission system for physics and calculus. The physics one is complete crap, and gives no feedback on right or wrong answers, however the calculus one includes a video explanation and another version for each question. Do you think that this system is the way which homework should go?

Sulker wrote:

daily life stuff such as like taxes, survival, etc

I know that many schools offer these as extra courses, however there isn't much emphasis placed on these. There really isn't much space left in the graduation curriculum for a student to really go through these courses. Do you think that schools should place one of these courses in as a graduation requirement?

neonat wrote:

but it gets the general idea of studying and learning ingrained into the students, it's about the learning process.

So really school isn't about the knowledge you gain in the short term, but the attitude that is developed? (self-motivation vs. non-motivation?)

Thanks everyone for your responses, I hope that we can keep this quality of discussion going

sanguisinvia wrote:

This is very true, however, I have an online homework submission system for physics and calculus. The physics one is complete crap, and gives no feedback on right or wrong answers, however the calculus one includes a video explanation and another version for each question. Do you think that this system is the way which homework should go?

What I'm trying to say is to just remove the pressure of failiure by giving instantaneous response. As long as the teacher him/herself can monitor the program, it's fine. But if the program is just automated, then that's called laziness.

Sonatora wrote:

What I'm trying to say is to just remove the pressure of failiure by giving instantaneous response. As long as the teacher him/herself can monitor the program, it's fine. But if the program is just automated, then that's called laziness.

By doing so, do you think the students will be able to adapt to an environment where failure is always present? In the current situation that our society is in, the average human is to complete a certain linear timeline in order to be considered as "normal." First you go to primary school, then secondary school, high school, college, and perhaps get a job. If we keep on letting the students feel at ease in every test they take, they won't be able to move on per se, when you let them go out into the world by themselves. They will always think that someone will be there to guide them and tell them what to do. But that's not what schools are for. We only go to school to get "training" and to acquire knowledge which will help up make decisions easier.

sanguisinvia wrote:

I know that many schools offer these as extra courses, however there isn't much emphasis placed on these. There really isn't much space left in the graduation curriculum for a student to really go through these courses. Do you think that schools should place one of these courses in as a graduation requirement?

Actually, our school has these courses which are divided into three groups: Mathematics, Science, and Business. You will be placed in a specific group depending on your results in a certain test. And yes, these groups are a requirement in order to graduate. If you fail, you repeat. It would be quite useless to give extra courses that teach about "daily things" since, as I stated, school is there to help us make choices and decisions. Schools will most likely encourage you to learn something you want to learn by yourselves since that helps you get independence.

sanguisinvia wrote:

Thanks everyone for your responses, I hope that we can keep this quality of discussion going

Yes, this is a very nice break from all the stupid things I see in OT

Sonatora wrote:

What I'm trying to say is to just remove the pressure of failiure by giving instantaneous response

Would you still allow the child to fail? Personally, I believe that failure is a type of motivation, a sort of negative-feedback. If we remove failure from the equation entirely, what make the student want to learn from their mistakes? If he puts forth the effort to learn and gets the same result as if he didn't try, then I'd be willing to bet that there would be a significant decline in his educational performance. I do agree however that instantaneous feedback is crucial, and that individualized teacher monitoring is best. However, what would need to be done to be able to implement this in a real environment. (How do you think we should organize the classroom structure?)

FlyingNeko wrote:

By doing so, do you think the students will be able to adapt to an environment where failure is always present?

I hadn't really thought about this, but it would be interesting to see how a person raised with no concept of failure would do in the competitive workforce. If they knew no failure, would they be more inclined to act "outside the box"?

Aurani wrote:

cause excessive fluctuations in that country's economy (best example would be present day Japan and how they're trying to reform it)

I read this this morning, however I had heard very little about an education reform in Japan, so I did some research on it. I found that they were placing a much larger focus on mathematics, language, and science, but I found no information on education reforms causing any economic fluctuations. I found some articles discussing how economic changes push educational reform, (which backs up the reason behind Japan's reforms) but I couldn't find anything talking about the inverse. I am very curious about this, and I wish for you to expand on this

FlyingNeko wrote:

Actually, our school has these courses which are divided into three groups: Mathematics, Science, and Business. You will be placed in a specific group depending on your results in a certain test. And yes, these groups are a requirement in order to graduate.

.

This is awesome, and exactly why I posted to these forums, I feel that the large non-American community can really add extra depth to the topic. So, your group is determined by a standardized test? Are you able to change groups after you have been set into one? And are courses from all three sections required for graduation? Pardon my dumb questions, I'm just trying to gain an understanding of how this all works in the Philippines.

piruchan wrote:

I believe that is true in some countries, but in Indonesia, you don't. Students up to 9th grade have their subjects pre-set by the government.

So, say you were given the ultimate freedom in your course choice. You only take the courses you want, and are not required to take any which you don't. Make a list of these courses, and now really think about what they teach. by taking just these courses, do you think that you will have all the skills needed to make it in a competitive economy? What about when compared with the rest of the world? This really brings up an interesting question, are classes which we have no interest in, or is not even related in any way to what we are interested in, valuable?

sanguisinvia wrote:

This is awesome, and exactly why I posted to these forums, I feel that the large non-American community can really add extra depth to the topic. So, your group is determined by a standardized test? Are you able to change groups after you have been set into one? And are courses from all three sections required for graduation? Pardon my dumb questions, I'm just trying to gain an understanding of how this all works in the Philippines.

Yes, each student is placed into a certain group depending on their results in the Philippine Aptitude Classification Test or simply PACT. I don't know whether other schools here have this sort of "grouping" but I do know that my school does. Though I have never tried changing groups, I know for a fact that you can. The details on how you could are beyond me. To put things simply, the three groups teach you the basics of Engineering, General Science, and um... Business. You just have to pass two years of one of these and you could graduate. But ever since the recent change here in the Philippines where K-12 is implemented, I think you would have to finish 4 years of one of any course. Then you could completely ignore college and go get a job.
I would also love to hear about other countries' system of education since I'm thinking of getting into the field of teaching once I graduate. I know I might just drop that because I have so many other plans for the future.

And man, this is the longest one page discussion I've seen in the osu! forums

sanguisinvia wrote:

So, say you were given the ultimate freedom in your course choice. You only take the courses you want, and are not required to take any which you don't. Make a list of these courses, and now really think about what they teach. by taking just these courses, do you think that you will have all the skills needed to make it in a competitive economy? What about when compared with the rest of the world? This really brings up an interesting question, are classes which we have no interest in, or is not even related in any way to what we are interested in, valuable?

For this problem I think what should be done is giving the basics of the subject that are necessary for live.

I'll use biology as an example. In my country, every students, before choosing their "major" (see my first post) will study biology up to classifications. This includes characteristics, reproduction, and diet of each classes in the kingdom. Is this necessary for life? I don't think so, but every students get this. What I think should be taught at biology are humans, animals, plants, and how they interact with each other and the planet they live in. Add in things like keeping your body healthy and which mushrooms are poisonous, you get things that you need in life. Not everybody needs to know what is the second stage of Taenia solium, what they need to know is how to avoid it from getting into their bodies. I believe this can be applied to other subjects.

If this is implemented, students choosing the wrong courses can't be avoided. To reduce this, I suggest schools tell their students what real life jobs needs this lesson. For example, student A wants to be a motor racing engineer. He will need physics. Which physics? Newton's law of motion, rotational kinematics, etc. Does he need atomic physics? He doesn't. Those time not studying atomic physics can be spend with extra class to deepen his understanding about rotational kinematics. Of course, this will need students to know what their interests are and not every students know well about themselves. I haven't figure out an effective way to do this.

As for competitive economy and comparing to the rest of the world, I think it's better to have 10 experts on different matters than having 10 jack-of-all trades with abilities that are average.

FlyingNeko wrote:

Yes, each student is placed into a certain group depending on their results in the Philippine Aptitude Classification Test or simply PACT. I don't know whether other schools here have this sort of "grouping" but I do know that my school does. Though I have never tried changing groups, I know for a fact that you can. The details on how you could are beyond me. To put things simply, the three groups teach you the basics of Engineering, General Science, and um... Business. You just have to pass two years of one of these and you could graduate.

At what level of the education does this grouping occur? And can you provide with average age of the level to help with comparison?

Slightly off-topic, but still about education. I just graduated from high school today. What baffles me is the 100% success rate of the national exams in my city with students averaging 50/60 total scores. Where is honesty? Here is what I have to say (quoting this from another thread)

piruchan wrote:

My rant

The ministry of education Fuck UN. I wonder what education they had.
They keep doing this national exam thing which has been known to cause good students to fail because their circles is too thin it's unreadable by the computer (Indonesians know what I mean).Year after year after year they keep asking students who are on grade IX and XII not to believe the widespread answer leak(btw, this year it's on mediafire, all 28 type of them), but never said that it's wrong/fake. (it is the correct one tough). And the worst thing is that they are "proud" because of the 99.xx% national success rate caused by this widespread answer leak. The test should be changed to national cheating exam, not just national exam.

I know that students future is not decided just by an exam, but come on, it's the same scenario year after year.

UN=national examinations, not the united nations. (that's how Indonesians call it)

For those interested about education in my country, read this. The article is in English. And please read the comments section, that place has truth and some bright people.

FlyingNeko wrote:

Yes, each student is placed into a certain group depending on their results in the Philippine Aptitude Classification Test or simply PACT.

What effect do you think these groups have on the student body? I'm going to assume that each of these groups are sort-of isolated from each other, in that students from one group aren't required to take courses in the engineering group, thereby limiting the interaction between groups. By surrounding the students with like-minded individuals, do you think that the mind-sets and educational development of the students has been effected?

FlyingNeko wrote:

I would also love to hear about other countries' system of education since I'm thinking of getting into the field of teaching once I graduate. I know I might just drop that because I have so many other plans for the future.

In the US, students are given a required number of credits: 4 years of math, 4 years of social science (history, gov, economics) 4 years of English, 4 years of sciences, and a few other required courses (fine arts, gym, foreign language) However, we can elect to take extra classes not on the course plan such as computer programming, engineering principles, and game design. There are also standardized tests which determine whether you can graduate, but these vary by state, and are spread over a period of 9 years.

piruchan wrote:

Slightly off-topic, but still about education. I just graduated from high school today. What baffles me is the 100% success rate of the national exams in my city with students averaging 50/60 total scores. Where is honesty? Here is what I have to say (quoting this from another thread)

Wow........ I read the article and it sounds pretty dire..... Here's my question, do you think that the availability of the answers has reduced the motivation of students to work hard? If all the answers are right there, why would anyone need to pursue them, especially when it seems that the government is almost proud of this?

piruchan wrote:

As for competitive economy and comparing to the rest of the world, I think it's better to have 10 experts on different matters than having 10 jack-of-all trades with abilities that are average

Would you agree that some courses outside of the major are necessary? If so, which ones? I will agree that being a "jack of all trades, master of none" is not very useful within an economy, but don't our students need interpersonal and presentation skills?

Here's a hypothetical situation/question for everyone:
Take a small community, where the students are raised in the mindset of competition, so that students are taught not to be the worst, basically having them grow up in a hyper-competitive environment. And we took these students and placed them in small groups, maybe of around 6, and gave them and individual and group rank. Do you think that this environment would be extremely hurtful or helpful to the student's motivation to learn/development/economic usefulness?

Okay, sorry for the long reply but expect a long post later. Im non my mobile so I can't do that much. Sorry

That's fine take your time.
*edited for readability (yes I did edit my five word post.....)

Going off on another thing here, in Canada, (BC at least) there is currently rotating teachers strike going on. I believe that it has something to do with amount of students in classes and special needs students. I also think that it has something to do with pay.(they always do)

Thoughts?

I couldn't find anything about special needs children being a cause for the strike, but it does seem that threats over decreased wages and overcrowded classrooms both have a hand in causing this strike. My sources said that the threats of wage reduction were "not a threat.... it is normal for for this type of negotiation" (source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-teachers-to-start-rotating-strikes-next-week-1.2648136)

So we've spent this time looking at education from the student's perspective in a sort of bottom-up, so let's try looking at this from the top-down. Why do teachers teach? The obvious answer is that they have an interest in the future of the students, but I think that this strike provides evidence against that. I am putting forth that many teachers are heavily intrinsically motivated (look at the wage reduction sparking the strike). Do you guys agree?

I'm switching perspectives now, lets go to the teachers side

sanguisinvia wrote:

I couldn't find anything about special needs children being a cause for the strike, but it does seem that threats over decreased wages and overcrowded classrooms both have a hand in causing this strike. My sources said that the threats of wage reduction were "not a threat.... it is normal for for this type of negotiation" (source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-teachers-to-start-rotating-strikes-next-week-1.2648136)

So we've spent this time looking at education from the student's perspective in a sort of bottom-up, so let's try looking at this from the top-down. Why do teachers teach? The obvious answer is that they have an interest in the future of the students, but I think that this strike provides evidence against that. I am putting forth that many teachers are heavily intrinsically motivated (look at the wage reduction sparking the strike). Do you guys agree?

The bolded text for the half part is a lie. I have to admit, there are some teachers there that do have an interest at the students future, but not actually or rarely witnessing it. For the half part, teachers teach because they want cash, salary. Money moves the world around, that's the natural law of this cruel world. I do not agree in this wage reduction tho' for the following reasons

1.) Teachers are dedicated
Whether they only want to teach for money or they want to see the kids future, its a mere fact that teachers are dedicated. You will see them writing tests at the middle of the night. They don't deserve this as much other physical labor do.

2.) Teaching is hard, very hard
Teaching is actually an art, in my opinion. You can't perfectly teach someone how to do quadratic equations in a single run. Teachers do their job to monitor their students performances by giving them assessment/examinations. We should acknowledge this

3.) Getting the attention of many is also hard
As a public speaker, getting attention of people is hard. In my experience, you need a strong will and faith on your words in order to make the speech more interesting. Making the speech interesting is the hard part, same applies to the teachers

As always welcome for shit constructive criticism

sanguisinvia wrote:

Wow........ I read the article and it sounds pretty dire..... Here's my question, do you think that the availability of the answers has reduced the motivation of students to work hard? If all the answers are right there, why would anyone need to pursue them, especially when it seems that the government is almost proud of this?

It has. The exam has been known to make students have grades that cannot be proven by their own ability to solve problems. Even the one that appears on the exam which they get 90% +. The exam doesn't have anything to do with the students except that it is a deciding factor for graduation (it used to be an absolute factor, rules changed, but it still plays a big deal, 60% out of total score)

As for the government, I have no idea what's on their mind.

sanguisinvia wrote:

Would you agree that some courses outside of the major are necessary? If so, which ones? I will agree that being a "jack of all trades, master of none" is not very useful within an economy, but don't our students need interpersonal and presentation skills?

I agree. For me, a natural science major, I think I can benefit from having economy classes. I'd love to learn about stock market, foreign currency, and how one thing can effect the price of lots of other object (CPO). Students do need interpersonal skills, but I don't think class/courses is the right place to learn about that. Because if that's true, than there won't be students brawl because in Indonesia we have a subject that teach about good behavior and such. For presentation skills, I think students with enough interest won't have a problem with that, except taking over performance anxiety which will only come from getting used to doing presentations.

sanguisinvia wrote:

Here's a hypothetical situation/question for everyone:
Take a small community, where the students are raised in the mindset of competition, so that students are taught not to be the worst, basically having them grow up in a hyper-competitive environment. And we took these students and placed them in small groups, maybe of around 6, and gave them and individual and group rank. Do you think that this environment would be extremely hurtful or helpful to the student's motivation to learn/development/economic usefulness?

I'm 50/50 on this. Hyper-competitive environment has a possibility to put too much pressure for the students which can cause a lot of problems on their psychological development. On the other hand, I think it can motivate the students to do better, especially with prize at the end .

sanguisinvia wrote:

So we've spent this time looking at education from the student's perspective in a sort of bottom-up, so let's try looking at this from the top-down. Why do teachers teach? The obvious answer is that they have an interest in the future of the students, but I think that this strike provides evidence against that. I am putting forth that many teachers are heavily intrinsically motivated (look at the wage reduction sparking the strike). Do you guys agree?

I don't know about other countries, but in Indonesia a lot of teacher do want to see their students success. Mind you, most teachers here are from old generation, it's quite rare to see a young teacher. These teachers started teaching long ago, during the time when their payment is less than 100 USD/month. Some even get 50 USD/month, the lowest I've heard is 20 USD/month (teachers get quite a lot now, but I don't know the exact numbers). If they don't have an interest or motivation, I don't know why would anyone take the job here. (See Sonatora's post above me, you get below 100 USD/month with all that? Kind of unfair to me)

Sorry if this reply is sub-par compared to my previous reply and some of the things I said doesn't really make sense.
I was sleepy when this was being written and only write what I think is necessary.

sanguisinvia wrote:

So we've spent this time looking at education from the student's perspective in a sort of bottom-up, so let's try looking at this from the top-down. Why do teachers teach? The obvious answer is that they have an interest in the future of the students, but I think that this strike provides evidence against that. I am putting forth that many teachers are heavily intrinsically motivated (look at the wage reduction sparking the strike). Do you guys agree?

As a student, I could see the effort that teachers put in to lead us to a correct future. And I'm very grateful for that. They even introduce us to programs and activities not found in the standard learning course. Some of which, in my country, as far as I know, are: Robotics, Economics, Biocamp, Bridge Building (Engineering), Performing Arts, Painting, and Music. I would love to get deep into these but I'm afraid it would take up so much space and would somehow bore you.

Naturally, teachers teach because it's their job. They got into this carreer, evidently, to teach. The training to be a teacher is very hard because you are required to learn a variety of skills, most importantly social skills. And honestly, dealing with people is tough.

It's very sensible why they would start a strike. Teaching in an environment that isn't ideal for both the students and the teachers is a more than enough reason for a strike. Whether they were thinking about the students or themselves is a mystery. But it is a good thing to know that they would go to such lengths to improve the quality of education.

piruchan wrote:

I don't know about other countries, but in Indonesia a lot of teacher do want to see their students success. Mind you, most teachers here are from old generation, it's quite rare to see a young teacher. These teachers started teaching long ago, during the time when their payment is less than 100 USD/month. Some even get 50 USD/month, the lowest I've heard is 20 USD/month (teachers get quite a lot now, but I don't know the exact numbers). If they don't have an interest or motivation, I don't know why would anyone take the job here. (See Sonatora's post above me, you get below 100 USD/month with all that? Kind of unfair to me)

This is a problem rather than a blessing. The fact that there are fewer young teachers in Indonesia worries me about your economy. And seeing that there are teachers who get only 20-50 USD/month makes it worse. If more and more people have less motivation to become a teacher, then the industry of teaching will slowly become obsolete. Parents who find the quality of education in your country bad will eventually decide to go abroad to transfer their child to a better school.

It would be great if Indonesia could possibly revise their teaching strategies. To inspire the students instead of just making them memorize lines in a book. And perhaps the whole world.

Honestly, I feel that schools kill creativity. Making you take tests mean that you have to allocate your brain to a certain topic and that topic only. It limits our imagination where there could possibly be broader things other than the things they tell you in school. Now I could understand why some successful people were dropouts. They never followed the ideals of the books they read. They wanted to see the world in a wider perspective than that of quadratic equations.

I don't agree with the way the system of education is right now. But I do understand how hard it is to teach. And how hard it would be to completely re-envision what education would be. Somehow my thoughts are clashing whether I would prefer to support the teachers as they are now or support the students in order for them to learn better.

Sorry for the late reply, I thought really hard about this....

FlyingNeko wrote:

And seeing that there are teachers who get only 20-50 USD/month makes it worse. If more and more people have less motivation to become a teacher, then the industry of teaching will slowly become obsolete. Parents who find the quality of education in your country bad will eventually decide to go abroad to transfer their child to a better school.

You obviously hold teachers to a high standard, and are inspired by them. How much does this inspiration motivate you?
Do you think that this could result in a rise of online education? There would be no salary to pay, and the law makers wouldn't have to worry about potential strikes... and if it did, do you think that a student who was taught via online courses would have the skills necessary to make a living? Basically, if we took the teacher out of the classroom, what effect do you think it would have?

FlyingNeko wrote:

I would prefer to support the teachers as they are now or support the students in order for them to learn better.

to support the students, we would need to hire more teachers to give more individualized attention, and it is possible that this would alleviate stress on the teachers. Instead of them having a full classroom to worry about, they have just a few students to focus on. However this costs a large amount of money both in the sheer number of teachers required, as well as a facility large enough to do this in.

FlyingNeko wrote:

Honestly, I feel that schools kill creativity

The article about the education reforms in Japan said a similar thing, they mentioned that while they're students did well at the written portions of the test, they felt that their students lacked the creativity to compete with other countries. My friend whom I originally discussed this also brought this up. So how can we teach kids without setting up a "box" in which they think?

piruchan wrote:

Students do need interpersonal skills, but I don't think class/courses is the right place to learn about that.

Would you agree that doing work within groups helps develop our ability to convey our ideas to others? This doesn't have to be a class devoted to interpersonal communication, this could just be an adaptation to our teaching methods. (although there are.... I was forced to take one...)

piruchan wrote:

For presentation skills, I think students with enough interest won't have a problem with that, except taking over performance anxiety which will only come from getting used to doing presentations.

Kind of reminds me of another post somewhere on these forums. "If you want to get good at math, do math. If you want to get good at osu!, play osu!." If we want to learn presentation skills, we should give presentations right? So, do you think that we can teach students proper presentation skills within the courses which they are interested in, without detracting from the student's interest in the course?

piruchan wrote:

I think it can motivate the students to do better, especially with prize at the end

So, if we were wanting to create a system where we reward the best students, or any students that meet x goal, without making it a hyper-competitive environment, how do you think we should do it? I recall something about the way Japanese companies hire employees causing massive competition between students before graduation, but I am not sure... Anyone have more about this?

Sonatora wrote:

I'm switching perspectives now, lets go to the teachers side

I completely agree with this post, so if we were to take the teachers who are completely dedicated, to the point where they continue to work even while underpaid and under appreciated, and made them sort of "prime figures" do you think this will help motivate students in a "trickle down" fashion? Do you think doing this would help motivate other teachers? Is it also possible to highlight the students achievements (or lack of) to try and motivate new teachers? (for the lack of achievement, we would be trying to get them to want to help the next generation, maybe out of concern for the future)

Sorry if I overlooked some of your questions. I'm here to answer them now.

piruchan wrote:

At what level of the education does this grouping occur? And can you provide with average age of the level to help with comparison?

For me, at least, I know that they group you when you reach Grade 9. It's a sort of guide to help you choose the course that is most suitable for you in college. Usually, in these groups they teach you the fundamentals of whichever course you would want to take up in college.

sanguisinvia wrote:

What effect do you think these groups have on the student body? I'm going to assume that each of these groups are sort-of isolated from each other, in that students from one group aren't required to take courses in the engineering group, thereby limiting the interaction between groups. By surrounding the students with like-minded individuals, do you think that the mind-sets and educational development of the students has been effected?

Yes, each group is isolated from each other. Having this sort of isolation from different groups could help the student adapt much easier to an environment where different people do the same tasks. They could develop a sense of cooperation. Since not all students have the same level of skill, the ones who are better at drafting and sketching will hopefully help the ones who are bad at it. In my own thoughts, the reason why each group has seperate classrooms is for the students to have a successful communication.

If you place a person who likes Korean drama and a person who likes anime in the same room, they won't be able to talk because neither of them have the same interests.

saguisinvia wrote:

Take a small community, where the students are raised in the mindset of competition, so that students are taught not to be the worst, basically having them grow up in a hyper-competitive environment. And we took these students and placed them in small groups, maybe of around 6, and gave them and individual and group rank. Do you think that this environment would be extremely hurtful or helpful to the student's motivation to learn/development/economic usefulness?

In this sort of hyper-competetive environment where each student will feel that they have to win in order to be successful could be good in some ways. It allows each student to do their best knowing that there are others who will also do their best. The one who does worse will eventually notice their mistakes and try to refine themselves in order to be ideal. But being raised in such an environment could hurt your social skills especially since being competent could degrade your values as a human. Depending on what kind of personality you have, it's either you push another to win or you build a bridge to win. Success could not be achieved without the failure of another party. Same as how you could not be marked as a hero if another is not marked as a villain.

Sonatora wrote:

As a public speaker, getting attention of people is hard. In my experience, you need a strong will and faith on your words in order to make the speech more interesting. Making the speech interesting is the hard part

I strongly agree and could relate. In the speeches I've presented before, I noticed that most don't really care much about your words unless you say or do something laughable in front of them. Everyone loves jokes because it makes them happy. Some teachers know that so they try to implement comedy in the things they are teaching. Anyone would find the batman equation obscure and boring if it didn't draw a batman logo.

saguisinvia wrote:

You obviously hold teachers to a high standard, and are inspired by them. How much does this inspiration motivate you?
Do you think that this could result in a rise of online education? There would be no salary to pay, and the law makers wouldn't have to worry about potential strikes... and if it did, do you think that a student who was taught via online courses would have the skills necessary to make a living? Basically, if we took the teacher out of the classroom, what effect do you think it would have?

I do have high respect for teachers and know that they work hard in order to teach. (see Sonatora's post) It would just be right to be inspired by them. Seeing as they're doing their best to teach, I should also be doing my best to study. But I don't like to study. I feel that this is where the teachers are lacking. They keep on telling their students to study but fail to notice that the student does not want that. Speaking to a book is very boring. Books don't reply to you. This is where your concept of online education comes in.

Having your teacher and all learning resources readily available to you through a small box is very convenient than having a huge classroom filled with many things. But think about how the students who don't have an internet connection would learn. If online education overpowers the classroom, then many students would be left out. And I can see that it's already starting it's reign right now. (Khan Academy, Coursera, Brilliant, etc.)

I think it would be best suited for the teacher to stay in the classroom. This way they would be able to successfully communicate with the students. The websites I stated above should only be used as a tool to improve learning.

sanguisinvia wrote:

Would you agree that doing work within groups helps develop our ability to convey our ideas to others? This doesn't have to be a class devoted to interpersonal communication, this could just be an adaptation to our teaching methods. (although there are.... I was forced to take one...)

From my experience, this depends on the group itself. If the the group is filled with students who don't really like being in a group, that won't really help. I think this is more applicable on a group that is doing something real, not for class or school requirements, but because they have the same goal.

sanguisinvia wrote:

Kind of reminds me of another post somewhere on these forums. "If you want to get good at math, do math. If you want to get good at osu!, play osu!." If we want to learn presentation skills, we should give presentations right? So, do you think that we can teach students proper presentation skills within the courses which they are interested in, without detracting from the student's interest in the course?

Why don't have the students talk about the course/things they're interested in? In that way, their interest won't be detracted and I believe they would prefer giving presentation about something that they like than something random from a book.

sanguisinvia wrote:

So, if we were wanting to create a system where we reward the best students, or any students that meet x goal, without making it a hyper-competitive environment, how do you think we should do it? I recall something about the way Japanese companies hire employees causing massive competition between students before graduation, but I am not sure... Anyone have more about this?

I can't really think of any way right now, but I think the system that the university I'm going to uses will work. It offers scholarship up to 100% for every student for every school year. They set a minimum final grades, all students with grades above or equal to that minimum grades is given a scholarship for the next year. The minimum grades is higher for students on higher year. (I think that's bad English, I can't think of other way to say it ). With that, all students will have the same goal in mind, but not making it hyper competitive. This will also make them more serious during study together moment.


I have a question, feel free to pass it if you think it's sensitive. What do you guys think about teaching religion as a subject at school? We get that here in Indonesia, but I've read that it's not necessary with some people say it's indoctrinating the students.

Sorry to move off topic, but I have an update on the teachers situation in Canada. As the teachers escalate job action, the government does as well. There is a lock out occurring for three days in June I believe, and the government is no longer allowing teachers to stay or arrive forty fire minutes before or after class.
My English teacher told our class this.

Thoughts?

CDFA wrote:

I don't get people who are like "school should only be about life skills", mostly because there's classes sort of like that, like Home Economics and Drivers Ed and stuff, and people find that pretty stupid. Plus, a lot of lessons can just be like, told, rather than taught. There are a lot of mathematical things, but I've managed to learn a lot of those in math classes (such as calculating interest, functional algebra, finding percentages of stuff, etc), and the stuff I don't know, it's not super hard to learn. People will be like "wow school didn't teach me how to balance a checkbook" like seriously just write your purchases in the book and keep track of it (and most companies do that for you on an online banking system, so checkbooks are mostly just for extra security, and I personally don't use one.)

The problem with a lot of schooling is that people want everything to be custom tailored to be as relaxing as possible without putting in effort. A lot of kids that I talk to complain about being bad at school never do tutoring, and they never talk in class, which is the worst thing you could do in a class if you're struggling. They'll spend a lot of time hanging out with friends or passing time on the internet, and they'll be like "Oh yeah I'm smart, i just don't do xxx" or "Oh yeah the system just doesn't work for me", but in actuality, a lot of problems lie from a lack of effort. I did tutoring at my school back when I was a part of CSF, and I maybe got to tutor like, 2-3 kids. I did about 4 tutoring sessions. Sure, there were multiple people, and I was the music guy, so I was low priority on getting people sent to me, but still. Kids complain a lot about school, but they're forgetting that like, there's so many opportunities for help.

People are also being little shits about education because they're like "wow life after you graduate it forces you to do xxx and xxx why can't it just later." Because these end up being the people that also complain that school shouldn't take so long and other stuff. Like, there's tailoring to needs, and then there's bullshit. Just because you spent all of your time on tumblr talking about how much you want to ruffle David Tennant's feathers instead of exploring your interests, doesn't mean that the world is cruel, it means that you didn't have the right motivation, and you're facing the consequences, and you're blaming others for it. I had an idea of what I was gonna do when I hit high school. I wanted to do something with music, and I changed around ideas, but now I'm going to school for Music Education, with an interest in Music Therapy that I may pursue if life throws me the right cards.

And if you want a sort of tangent, education is gonna hurt a LOT of it ever goes to a focus on online schools. I'm not just saying this as a music educator, but as a person that has done online school. It's pretty pointless. There's VERY few resources to help you, it's easy to just find answers, and it hurts social skills as well. Same with homeschooling, especially when parents do it who aren't really qualified to teach at all. I understand that situations happen, but if the focus goes to that, the quality of teaching is gonna go downhill.

One of my BIGGEST pet peeves about the school system is that there's a whole "You go on no matter what". Here's how a lot of kids end up going through school

1) They fail to understand basic concepts in elementary school
2) The parents refuse to believe that their child is doing bad, and there's no real GPA barrier to stop the kid from moving on
3) Kids goes on
4) Kid might get put in remedial classes, but never get stopped to review concepts
5) Kid goes to high school in remedial classes
6) Kid does bad and ends up having to go to night school
7) Kid fails and breaks everything

Wanna know why? Because there's no standard to keep kids on a good track. It's all based on the parents, and a lot of kids come from households that don't really support education or know whats best. And that's why kids struggle in high school.

Keep the kids back early. A good foundation is what you need for success in the future. Who cares if you get held back? If you're struggling, its helpful to try again and get a review.

im gonna stop before this gets longer

I generally agree with your points. On mobile right now so I don't want to type much but cultural differences are why American schools are worse than Asian ones.

CDFA wrote:

I don't get people who are like "school should only be about life skills", mostly because there's classes sort of like that, like Home Economics and Drivers Ed and stuff, and people find that pretty stupid. Plus, a lot of lessons can just be like, told, rather than taught. There are a lot of mathematical things, but I've managed to learn a lot of those in math classes (such as calculating interest, functional algebra, finding percentages of stuff, etc), and the stuff I don't know, it's not super hard to learn. People will be like "wow school didn't teach me how to balance a checkbook" like seriously just write your purchases in the book and keep track of it (and most companies do that for you on an online banking system, so checkbooks are mostly just for extra security, and I personally don't use one.)

The problem with a lot of schooling is that people want everything to be custom tailored to be as relaxing as possible without putting in effort. A lot of kids that I talk to complain about being bad at school never do tutoring, and they never talk in class, which is the worst thing you could do in a class if you're struggling. They'll spend a lot of time hanging out with friends or passing time on the internet, and they'll be like "Oh yeah I'm smart, i just don't do xxx" or "Oh yeah the system just doesn't work for me", but in actuality, a lot of problems lie from a lack of effort. I did tutoring at my school back when I was a part of CSF, and I maybe got to tutor like, 2-3 kids. I did about 4 tutoring sessions. Sure, there were multiple people, and I was the music guy, so I was low priority on getting people sent to me, but still. Kids complain a lot about school, but they're forgetting that like, there's so many opportunities for help.

People are also being little shits about education because they're like "wow life after you graduate it forces you to do xxx and xxx why can't it just later." Because these end up being the people that also complain that school shouldn't take so long and other stuff. Like, there's tailoring to needs, and then there's bullshit. Just because you spent all of your time on tumblr talking about how much you want to ruffle David Tennant's feathers instead of exploring your interests, doesn't mean that the world is cruel, it means that you didn't have the right motivation, and you're facing the consequences, and you're blaming others for it. I had an idea of what I was gonna do when I hit high school. I wanted to do something with music, and I changed around ideas, but now I'm going to school for Music Education, with an interest in Music Therapy that I may pursue if life throws me the right cards.

And if you want a sort of tangent, education is gonna hurt a LOT of it ever goes to a focus on online schools. I'm not just saying this as a music educator, but as a person that has done online school. It's pretty pointless. There's VERY few resources to help you, it's easy to just find answers, and it hurts social skills as well. Same with homeschooling, especially when parents do it who aren't really qualified to teach at all. I understand that situations happen, but if the focus goes to that, the quality of teaching is gonna go downhill.

One of my BIGGEST pet peeves about the school system is that there's a whole "You go on no matter what". Here's how a lot of kids end up going through school

1) They fail to understand basic concepts in elementary school
2) The parents refuse to believe that their child is doing bad, and there's no real GPA barrier to stop the kid from moving on
3) Kids goes on
4) Kid might get put in remedial classes, but never get stopped to review concepts
5) Kid goes to high school in remedial classes
6) Kid does bad and ends up having to go to night school
7) Kid fails and breaks everything

Wanna know why? Because there's no standard to keep kids on a good track. It's all based on the parents, and a lot of kids come from households that don't really support education or know whats best. And that's why kids struggle in high school.

Keep the kids back early. A good foundation is what you need for success in the future. Who cares if you get held back? If you're struggling, its helpful to try again and get a review.

im gonna stop before this gets longer

You resumed what I've always thought. I thought I was the only one. Keep the kids back early, no one's really born stupid.

piruchan wrote:

I have a question, feel free to pass it if you think it's sensitive. What do you guys think about teaching religion as a subject at school? We get that here in Indonesia, but I've read that it's not necessary with some people say it's indoctrinating the students.

Religion is important in history. In order to understand the motivation behind people's past actions, we must first understand their mindsets (and also the meanings behind literature), however, I think that the time and manner that this is done makes the difference whether it is wrong or right. At the age of 14, a student begins to create their "personal" identity, ie. they choose what they like and how they will live, no longer relying on the opinions of their parents and peers. It is at this time and before that religion in school is the most indoctrinating I guess. Any time after this however, as long as the topic is taught objectively, there shouldn't be a problem. Also, if a teacher is actively preaching and trying to convert students, then it is wrong.

Basically as long as religion is used as a teaching tool, after the time when the students understands who they are, it should be ok. This is done assuming the school is a public-government funded school. Private schools can do whatever they want in terms of teaching religion. You or your parents pay the school to teach, and can withdraw at any moment (or just not even show up) so if you don't agree with the material taught, you are not required to be there.

This thread needs to die.

Looks like someone's an uneducated asshole

NatsuWM wrote:

This thread needs to die.

Go back to off-topic you filthy beast

Fine, I'll go back to hell where I belong.

I dropped out of school 5 years ago and it was the worst thing that ever happened to me in my life. Anyone who reads this please do not be like me. Stay in school because it will make your life easier.

The nature of your post makes me think you willingly dropped out, which I wouldn't call a very shrewd move due to the current mindset of our society, as well as the precept that has been set by the same.

From what little information I could gather, not going through the necessary educational institutions is arguably a one-way road to suicide or an unhappy life to say the least. Some individuals do get past it unscathed by putting their pure intelligence to use, but those cases are too rare to be relied upon.

I have a question.

In my country, there is this subject, let's call it ethics (I don't know how translate it). Basically it teaches students way to behave and what mindset to have. Sounds good, doesn't it? Well, there is a problem. This subject turns out to be what students consider as the easiest subject at school, and 90+% (me included) never study for the test because all you need is common sense. Example test question :

When you visit someone else's house, what should you do first?
A) Enter without asking for permission
B) Wait and do nothing until somebody comes out from the house
C) Knock the door and politely ask if someone is inside the house
D) Call inside the house
E) Shout to the people inside the house to indicate that you are there

Students get high grades on this test, because.....you know why.

To determine if the student has passed the subject, my country uses grades. And with questions like that, of course 90+% students will pass. Aside from tests grades there is also "practice" (once again, I don't know how translate it correctly) grades. Basically, "practice" grades is used to measure the student's ability to use the theory given for real life stuff.

If implemented correctly, this will means students who behave badly (bullies and the likes) will get low "practice" grades. But they don't. If they are somewhat famous bully and the teacher knows about them, they will get the minimum grades for passing, 75/100. Other students will have somewhere around 85-95/100 depends on what other teachers say. The only way to fail the subject is being involved on mass brawl or criminal activity.

With that, do you think the subject has done it's job or does it fail?

Personally, I think it fails. Why? Because that basically allows student to have a mindset like this,"Hey, as long as you don't violate the law, it's okay to be bad." Which is wrong for me.

Example : Having a gender-bias view is bad, but it's not breaking the law, so it's okay. Believing to stereotypes is bad, but it's not breaking the law, so it's okay.
^ I know a lot of educated (master and doctoral degrees) people like that in real life (in my country), which makes me question about this subject.