Ladies and Gentlemen the perfect education system. Click now, right here, to read it

[zipper]

<p>You heard of Taxes?</p>

[Nickel_Xenon]

<p>Taxing people isn’t the same as giving everyone equal pay and you mentioned <em>everyone</em> would have a high salary, didn’t you?</p>

[zipper]

<p>I did not say equal pay. Also, community/government ownership of factories, etc. but unequal pay. But minimum wage, and and gov/community help when things get tough.</p>

<p>Also, What do you think is the best solution. Your very good at finding problems, but you have not posed one soluion.</p>

[Nickel_Xenon]

<p>Yeah, sounds pretty communist to me. You can go on believing you’re a socialist, though. And I’ve tired of this circle. =/ So bye.</p>

[zipper]

<p>^^^^^^ You can only find peoblems, not solutions. Thats why you are frustrated.</p>

[mj93]

<p>i think this would be good as a high school system, but not college. college is important for networking.</p>

<p>it’s best to avoid your peers ages 14-17, so this system actually would work perfectly…</p>

[snoopyiscool]

<p>This would never work.</p>

<p>That is all.</p>

[rockermcr]

<p>

Every kid will have a computer, and all learning will be on the computer,

</p>

<p>Who will finance that? </p>

<p>

Pass/fail, no grades; kids will then be motivated by learning.

</p>

<p>Or, they won’t be motivated at all, because there will be no reward. </p>

<p>

Because no need for teachers and schools, their can be thousands of courses, and so kids can learn what interest them. Also, no grades means so stupid competition, so ALL kids will have good self esteem, not just the ones who get good grades.

</p>

<p>What about the kids who fail? Will they have good self-esteem? Is self-esteem based solely on grades?</p>

<p>

Computers are especially good because they can guide you though everything. For ex. to learn derivatives, it will tell you step1, step 2, etc.

</p>

<p>You’re right. Teacher’s aren’t capable of teaching derivatives in a step-by-step method.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>uhh, how would you call this system socialistic?</p>

<p>It’s more libertarian than socialistic, for that matter.</p>

<p>Oh and read [ParaPundit:</a> Walter Russell Mead For Standard National Tests](<a href=“http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003267.html]ParaPundit:”>http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003267.html) . (note, I’m not critical of your idea, I’m generally very sympathetic to it but ONLY if it allows for incentives)</p>

<p>==
Grades are necessary for motivation. “One proctored final test at the end” would only work in if the test was graded (also, force some tests to have essay components). Also, multiple level tests (kind of like the collegeboard’s decision to administer SAT II Math IC and IIC tests)</p>

<p>I’ve seen this idea discussed many times before so I’m getting somewhat tired. the system WOULD work for highly self-motivated learners. The problem is - what about those who are not so self-motivated? My idea is this: mandatory testing for all students, school vouchers for all students, and allow students to opt for homeschooling as long as they can pass certain benchmarks on certain tests by certain years. Make vouchers applicable for programs like CTY and EPGY, and to certain educational materials (let them apply for textbooks and test prep books). Incentivize some teachers to post their lectures online for free consumption (like MIT OCW). You should have the choice to watch the lecture of your choice, and to visit associated forums of your choice (for discussion). Vouchers will help competition bring the costs of textbooks down (prep books often cover just as much material as a standard course - oftentimes more - and are far cheaper than traditional textbooks). But such a system has to come from the bottom-up. I STILL haven’t seen a good forum for homeschoolers and self-studiers. AoPS is filled with geniuses who live on math, and PhysicsForums has its weird “show your steps before asking people to help you solve the problem” rule that will discourage teenagers from coming on.</p>

<p>Also, allow vouchers to be applied for SAT II and AP tests (and other associated tests). </p>

<p>The MAIN issue is - HOW DO WE TEACH unmotivated students? The traditional education model clearly doesn’t work (plenty of material on this - “Keeping Track” is one), but a model of self-motivation may also fail. </p>

<p>The MAIN problem concerns this question: how do homeschoolers improve their essay writing skills? This is a concern in part because it is so difficult for them to test essay writing. But colleges can force them to submit SOME essay prompt.</p>

<p>==</p>

<h1>Most people these days who provide models of the “perfect educational system” seem to endorse the idea of decentralized learning that relies on the Internet. I’m clearly not alone in this. But I fear to see how it may work on the weakly-motivated. </h1>

<p>

i think this would be good as a high school system, but not college. college is important for networking.

</p>

<p>Not necessarily. A lot of students don’t really network in college, as it’s not the main point of college. The main point of college is simply to provide employers with means to assess the intelligence and work ethic of a student.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>Zipper - your mistake lies in assuming that this will come out of a socialistic system. I do not necessarily think that this will be the case, especially if such a system rests on the assumption that people are equal (when they are clearly unequal in their intellectual talents and potentials). The problem is that if you give everyone freedom - inequalities will inevitably arise as some people will learn more in their free time than others. Forcing people into the same classrooms effectively forces some self-motivated students to lose time - and they learn less as a result. </p>

<p>Such inequalities are good in the sense that they encourage some people to become productive and to do well on tests, which will allow them to find the most intellectually demanding occupations in accordance with their abilities. </p>

<p>Rather, I think that this system will most likely arise out of a libertarian country. The problem is - no country is libertarian enough. the reason is pretty simple, really. Libertarian countries suck at defending themselves. </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/301030-free-market-education-unschooling-distance-ed.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/301030-free-market-education-unschooling-distance-ed.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/418274-people-should-able-earn-credit-toward-college-degrees-taking-standard-tests.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/418274-people-should-able-earn-credit-toward-college-degrees-taking-standard-tests.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>And from Charles Murray:</p>

<p>

Government policy contributes to the problem by making college scholarships and loans too easy to get, but its role is ancillary. The demand for college is market-driven, because a college degree does, in fact, open up access to jobs that are closed to people without one. The fault lies in the false premium that our culture has put on a college degree.

</p>

<p>

Advances in technology are making the brick-and-mortar facility increasingly irrelevant. Research resources on the Internet will soon make the college library unnecessary. Lecture courses taught by first-rate professors are already available on CDs and DVDs for many subjects, and online methods to make courses interactive between professors and students are evolving. Advances in computer simulation are expanding the technical skills that can be taught without having to gather students together in a laboratory or shop. These and other developments are all still near the bottom of steep growth curves. The cost of effective training will fall for everyone who is willing to give up the trappings of a campus. As the cost of college continues to rise, the choice to give up those trappings will become easier.

</p>

<p>

Even if forgoing college becomes economically attractive, the social cachet of a college degree remains. That will erode only when large numbers of high-status, high-income people do not have a college degree and don’t care. The information technology industry is in the process of creating that class, with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as exemplars. It will expand for the most natural of reasons: A college education need be no more important for many high-tech occupations than it is for NBA basketball players or cabinetmakers. Walk into Microsoft or Google with evidence that you are a brilliant hacker, and the job interviewer is not going to fret if you lack a college transcript. The ability to present an employer with evidence that you are good at something, without benefit of a college degree, will continue to increase, and so will the number of skills to which that evidence can be attached. Every time that happens, the false premium attached to the college degree will diminish.

</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>In a sense, the glories of capitalism will recognize talent!</p>

[Yoshukiu]

<p>This thread poses the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of.</p>

<p>It’s a joke, right?</p>

[mr_chipset]

<p>You can’t learn math from books. I mean, calculus is already hard to self-study ( believe me, I tried) and stuff like diffi-qs and linear algebra is just impossible to efficiently self-study from computer. You need someone to guide you through the whole process (like a lecture).</p>

<p>Oh, and if your self-esteem depends on the grades you get then you’re in some serious <i don’t=“” want=“” to=“” get=“” banned=“” again=“”>.</i></p><i don’t=“” want=“” to=“” get=“” banned=“” again=“”>
</i>