What Should We Teach The Next Generation?

misskool

CLAPTON wrote: »

useless;
we need to equip them with the knowledge and skills to find solutions to problems both those existing today and those they will meet in the future.

absolutely, i'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet but we need to teach young people to have critical thinking. The media is all powerful these days and young people are sheepies who follow what is going on around them.

We need them to be able to evaluate all that is going on around them and make the choices that is right for them.

All the information required for them to make decisions exists, they need to be able to think it through themselves.

misskool

pqrdef wrote: »

Y

For instance, to do a history degree at a decent university, they'll probably want a good A level in history. This is only to cut down the numbers. If you aren't doing A level history, apply for a different subject and ask to change subjects when you arrive. Once your missing A level doesn't appear in the statistical returns, it won't matter. Universities mostly don't rely on their students having learnt any particular material at school.

As someone who does teach at a university, I wish we could rely on students having learnt something at school! That would allow me to teach interesting topics and concepts rather than trying to find a middle ground.

I have previously taught first year students human genetics. Half the class had done the module in A-levels (or whatever they are called now) so got really bored when I had to catch up the other half of the class who didn't learn as well because I was trying to fit in interesting stuff in between.

I understand that we can't make automatons but there has to be a better way for the teacher not to feel that their subject has to be dumbed down (especially at HE!)

vivatifosi

CLAPTON wrote: »

We need to teach about real science not junk science.
They need a proper understanding of physics, chemistry, biology and maths to help solves the problems we face; not a lot of half formed junk proganda about GM foods and climate change.

Sorry, but boring things like boyles/charles law, chemical equations, percentages and calculus etc are the foundations of proper knowledge and not 'newspaper' junk science.

I agree that these things need to be taught, but hard to grasp subjects like physics can't be a one size fits all. They still should be taught as options to those with aptitude, but for those without the academic bent, why not teach them in applied form? For example, circuitry could be taught to would-be electricians instead of physics.

The kids I see who are doing poorly at school are, for the most part, not stupid. They just don't see what use learning that particular subject, or group of subjects, is to them. We need to give them something that they value so that the traditionally 'hard' subjects aren't devalued and you don't have to get to a situation where at uni you are teaching people the basics because they weren't taught them at A level or GCSE. ETA: just noticed I've cross-posted this point with misskool.

In short there are two problems: 1) giving an education to those that aren't interested in academia that meets their future needs, without 2) devaluing traditional academic subjects for those that will go to university or some form of education. That's before we even start on the role of parenting...

IveSeenTheLight

misskool wrote: »

absolutely, i'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet but we need to teach young people to have critical thinking. The media is all powerful these days and young people are sheepies who follow what is going on around them.

We need them to be able to evaluate all that is going on around them and make the choices that is right for them.

All the information required for them to make decisions exists, they need to be able to think it through themselves.

Indeed,
I want my children to be able to understand information that is available, question the sources if need be and not to be afraid to make decisions / go with what they believe to be the right choice for them.
I want them to realise that if they want to succeed, they have better opportunities if they apply and go beyond the expectations.
I want them to be able to take care of themselves and their famailies, consider what might happen in the future and try to be best positioned for those possibilities.

IveSeenTheLight

misskool wrote: »

As someone who does teach at a university, I wish we could rely on students having learnt something at school! That would allow me to teach interesting topics and concepts rather than trying to find a middle ground.

I have previously taught first year students human genetics. Half the class had done the module in A-levels (or whatever they are called now) so got really bored when I had to catch up the other half of the class who didn't learn as well because I was trying to fit in interesting stuff in between.

I understand that we can't make automatons but there has to be a better way for the teacher not to feel that their subject has to be dumbed down (especially at HE!)

Reading your post, it immediately makes me think of Microsoft and how they have courses for their applications at Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced levels.
This may be an option.

Alternatively, at university level, you should be able to define the expectations prior to attending the course and the students should be expected to apply themselves to source the knowledge they may need.

IveSeenTheLight

Bennifred wrote: »

It would help enormously if more students arrived in secondary school able to read and write at a reasonable level (or at all, in lots of cases).......:(

I wonder if parenting has a lot to do with this.
At the age of one, my son could count up and down to 20 as well as pick out numbers.

At three, he can write his own name and is working through more formal numbers i.e. writing numbers, understanding basic arithmatic.

Children are spnges, eager to learn.

How many parents spend time with their children or sit them down in front of childrens television for an easy life.

the basics should not start when the children are already 5 and go to school.

moneyinmypocket

^ good points

CLAPTON

vivatifosi wrote: »

I agree that these things need to be taught, but hard to grasp subjects like physics can't be a one size fits all. They still should be taught as options to those with aptitude, but for those without the academic bent, why not teach them in applied form? For example, circuitry could be taught to would-be electricians instead of physics.

The kids I see who are doing poorly at school are, for the most part, not stupid. They just don't see what use learning that particular subject, or group of subjects, is to them. We need to give them something that they value so that the traditionally 'hard' subjects aren't devalued and you don't have to get to a situation where at uni you are teaching people the basics because they weren't taught them at A level or GCSE. ETA: just noticed I've cross-posted this point with misskool.

In short there are two problems: 1) giving an education to those that aren't interested in academia that meets their future needs, without 2) devaluing traditional academic subjects for those that will go to university or some form of education. That's before we even start on the role of parenting...

Interestly, years ago, before we dumbed down physics, 'circuitry' used to be taught as part of physics but now it's considered too difficult and polemics on global warming are taught instead.

Certainly the courses have to be targeted to the abilities of the students but the idea that gases expand when heated, the atmosphere has pressure etc supported by some experiments (now virtually banned for cost and h&s rules) and a few simple equations is useful stuff and provides the grounding for more advanced stuff whether at uni or along technical lines.

vivatifosi

CLAPTON wrote: »

Interestly, years ago, before we dumbed down physics, 'circuitry' used to be taught as part of physics but now it's considered too difficult and polemics on global warming are taught instead.

Wow, really? Goes to show how much physics has changed since I was at school. That's a shame.

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

Sadly, after BobQ post, this represents everything else that's wrong with our approach to schooling.

We need to teach about real science not junk science.
They need a proper understanding of physics, chemistry, biology and maths to help solves the problems we face; not a lot of half formed junk proganda about GM foods and climate change.

Sorry, but boring things like boyles/charles law, chemical equations, percentages and calculus etc are the foundations of proper knowledge and not 'newspaper' junk science.

I agree totally with the above.

zagubov wrote: »

I think there are or were plenty of courses which would benefit everybody.. .....

We're not teaching these things to enough people. I'm honestly wondering what we are teaching.:(

These represent the minimum level of some aspects of general education for those who claim they want to drop subjects.

I also feel that if someone avoids/tries to drop science or humanities after compulsory education/GCSE, then the above is the minimum anyone needs and that represents and absolute baseline. The optimum for say science is way above that and includes equations, laws, etc. I'm not suggesting we drop any of that at all.

I'd far rather use the Scottish system of insisting on a mix of numerate/literate subjects where you have to mix about 5 or 6 subjects including maths/sciences and english/languages/humanities. Or for that matter the Irish system. I bet they don't have to witter on about any science /arts divide in culture.

Youi'll notice the original quote didn't suggest any science at all, which beggars belief. :eek:

A friend who taught, at various times, music and geology quite rightly complained we're the first generation trying to pass on less knowledge to the next one. A terrible indictment.

Assuming we can all agree on what's needed in specialist education for, say, going on to higher ed, my question is

-what's the minimum knowledge or skills everybody should know or have?