<p>I’m surprised to hear people taking offense at that term, which after all just means “eastern.” No Chinese person would take offense at being called a 東方人 (eastern, or “Oriental” person) in Chinese, so why would the same person take offense at being called “Oriental” in English? </p>
<p>In my speaking of Chinese, I use the term 東方人 without expecting anyone to whom it applies to find the term offensive. In my speaking of English, I usually say “east Asian person” when that is what I mean. I have heard speakers of English from India describe Taiwanese persons as “Oriental,” and that makes sense, because both Indians and Taiwanese people are “Asian,” but Taiwan is east of India, so Taiwanese people are eastern people from the point of view of India.</p>
<p>mini,
You state that your home-schooled D was engaged in academics less than one hour per day, and made it to Princeton. Yet you seem to be implying that 1.1 - 1.7 hours of academic time in schools is not enough. Do I have this right?</p>
<p>Assuming the 1.1 - 1.7 academic day is true, do you think students don’t “LEARN” anything else while at school for the remainder of the day? What did your D do after learning academics for < 1 hour each day? </p>
<p>Mine participated in team sports, went to the library, read, met with teachers and counselors, volunteered with Special Ed kids at lunch, went to club meetings, made posters, planned school-wide events, talked with friends, followed rules, made decisions about what to have for lunch, observed behaviors and their consequences, planned their weekends, paid for books and dances, did their homework and much more. I am quite confident that they learned plenty outside of that 1.1 - 1.7 hours of academics.</p>
<p>“Yet you seem to be implying that 1.1 - 1.7 hours of academic time in schools is not enough. Do I have this right?”</p>
<p>Oh, no! I think it more than enough. And, as I wrote, it is outside of those 1.1-1.7 hours (actually closer to 40 minutes) that they actually learn. (Actually, I favor NO academic time in schools, at least up to age 12. I think, from experienced, that structured well, most kids would learn more. But then I’m not real fond of schools.)</p>
<p>“And by extensive schooling system, I mean a schooling system that covers large segments of the population.”</p>
<p>In 1776, schools did not cover large segments of the population, and those they did cover, it wasn’t for very long. In fact, there was no “schooling system” at all.</p>
<p>The term “Oriental” was common when I was young, and I too, was surprised to hear that it had become an offensive term. I don’t recall it being used in an offensive way toward Asian people (unfortunately, other slurs existed) and I lived in an area populated largely by Asian people. It was not used in reference to people of Indian descent, so it was a more precise description.</p>
<p>Can anyone explain why it is considered offensive? Just curious.</p>
<p>I think “Oriental” just sounds out of date. If people learn that “Asian” is more PC, they’ll use that. Most people try hard to not be offensive, so they use what they think the most PC term is at the time.</p>
<p>I can honestly say that in my junior year which I just finished, I spent more time taking school-wide, state-wide, region-wide, and national standardized tests, as well as preparing for said tests, than actually learning.</p>
<p>At least 20 out of 180 days were spent actually testing- 1 out of 9 days, and many more were for preparation - we spent an entire quarter preparing for English NECAP’s (New England Common Assessment Program).</p>
<p>The emphasis on extracurriculars is also approaching ridiculous levels. It would be better to spend more time learning and have each student do 2 or 3 EC’s than cut back on learning so everyone can do 10 activities, many of which are of no value to the student except to put on a resume.</p>
<p>I don’t <em>quite</em> agree with that. I think some amount of testing is necessary. What I’m seeing here is that when the O Levels are removed and students go straight to the A Levels in six years (as opposed to O Levels in four and A Levels in two), the immediate incentive for students to establish the foundation they need for higher-level work (approx. AP level) disappears. The initial purpose was to reduce stress on the students and free up the six or so months that might be spent on revision instead of active learning, but instead students are panicking more, cramming more and looking for more shortcuts because #1 they don’t know how much they need to know, and #2 since now continual assessment, instead of testing, determines whether you can move on to the A Levels, students are stressing out every day of the week, every week of the term, and learning even less. (obligatory unscientific anecdote: I was told of a girl who broke down and cried because she could not get out of a field trip with her EC group that would have taken her out of class for two hours. She was afraid she would not be able to catch up with her work afterward.)</p>
<p>You know - fundamentally I think it’s just the attitude of the students and teachers. What I’ve seen suggests to me that a good student will find a way to learn, anyway, anyhow, anywhere, and a good student-teacher relationship often is not subject to the boundaries of the classroom of the curriculum - if the teacher can teach and the student wants to learn, the above situation can easily be avoided. But on a systemic level, you can’t say “oh if they’re any good they can help themselves” and leave the education system to itself - hence the need for <em>some</em> standardized testing.</p>
<p>Although American students spend less time in school than those in many other countries, do, as this article states, I wouldn’t call them “lazy.” Their smaller amount of class time may be offset by the fact that universities in most other countries admit students on the basis of their academic records only – they don’t care about extracurriculars. Our high school students may not spend as much time in class, but they put in a lot of time on quasi-required extracurriculars that students in other countries don’t feel obligated to do.</p>
<p>The length of the school year reflects only on American school policies and in no way is a commentary on our students. If the school year was increased to 200+ days our students would respond just fine. Same goes for homework load. Teachers assign the homework. If they assigned more our students would compare well with their European counterparts.</p>
<p>Oriental is more precise than Asian and therefore more useful IMO, though I prefer Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. Asian could be someone from China, India or even Israel!</p>
<p>I honestly do not have an opinion about whether we should lengthen the day or the year of the public schools. But, today, the day after our school system let out, I am so glad the school year is over for my junior. She had a miserable, stressed year. Today, she woke up smiling. She walked and played with the dog and sat down to do her daily crossword and Sudoku. She is going bike riding with a friend in an hour. After that, she will row on the Potomac for 2 hours. (She loves rowing!) Tonight she will watch a movie. No tears! No frustration! Thank God school is over!</p>
<p>This is disingenuous. The N-word just means “black,” so why can’t you say it? And the white guy from South Africa is from Africa and lives in America, so why can’t he check the box that says African-American?</p>
<p>Because words carry weight beyond their literal meanings. A good communicator knows it’s important to pick not just the words that are literally correct, but those which evoke the right images and attitudes in the mind of the listener or reader.</p>
<p>(By the way, I find “Oriental” merely dated. It suggests to me that the speaker needs to “get with the times”.)</p>
<p>^I feel much the same way. My son was playing the violin - for pleasure! He’s been so stressed this year. He’s rereading books right now. His friends are planning to picnic in Central Park this weekend - hoping the weather cooperates - it looks very iffy.</p>
<p>Here is another fascinating fact about the Colfaxes…the 3 boys were adopted and were not a sibling group. So, this isn’t a case of super-intelligent parents giving birth to super-intelligent kids who would have succeeded no matter what.</p>
<p>We frequently hear about American students lagging behind those of other countries. Does anyone know on what that is based? They are not all taking the same standardized tests, so I wonder how they can be compared.</p>
<p>I often read or hear that American students are behind many other countries’ students when they enter college, but then catch up during their college years. I love the America system and think it is as it should be, for the most part. Let the kids enjoy themselves and grow in ways other than academically. There will be plenty of time for work when they grow up. Then they can be miserable like the rest of us grown-ups. :D</p>
<p>I agree with many of the author’s points - the over-focus of time and resources on the low-achievement end has cost us much more than many people know.</p>
<p>What is the purpose of the education system? Is it to impart a specific set of skills and knowledge? Is it to prepare students to enter the workforce? Is it to develop a habit of personal learning? </p>
<p>The first goal would easily be accomplished through rote memorization.<br>
The second takes some specialization at higher levels, but still has a very strong “core” set of skills and knowledge.
The third is the most complex, IMO. It requires the student to be interested AND be taught how to pursue learning.</p>
<p>Increasing time in school would probably help the first goal, likely help the second, but would probably fail the third goal.</p>
<p>What goal(s) do you want to accomplish via education?</p>