<p>I don’t necessarily buy the premises in post 157. Depth is a different measurement than breadth, and it is not my observation as an educator that U.S. high school students in the mid-level schools (not the upper level) are getting much depth whatsoever. Depth requires one heck of a lot of hard work, hard thinking, time, and writing. (On the part of the students and teachers.) It has been suggested to me that too many teachers rely on M/C tests because they require less time grading. (Duh.) Further, since little attention is being paid to writing in middle school (& too many) high schools, it would/does require even <em>more</em> time to understand, let alone grade, what used to be called a “subjective” test vs. an “objective” test. To me, that’s just passing the buck, teachers. If they haven’t learned to write by the 10th/11th grade, make history; teach them to write.</p>
<p>Post 160, you need to give it up, agj. Again, this is YOUR issue, not mine. I don’t have a problem with the article, the author, or the issues discussed on this thread. You are personalizing the article and frankly making more assumptions than most other posters here are, including me. You’re not going to get anywhere by suggesting that I shadow-box with an author I have no argument with. Please fight your own fights. Thank you.</p>
<p>I am curious to know how I am making assumptions about the article?
And I apologize if you are not interested or are offended by a simple intellectual debate.</p>
<p>I hate people like agj who say ******y things like “I apologize if you are offended by a simple intellectual debate.” On another note, I think that every nation in the world is capable of producing innovative people.
American students might be smarter for not wanting to waste more time in school but the fact that they cannot deal with a bigger workload/longer hours does show that they are lazier than the students of many other nations.</p>
<p>If I am reading the zeitgeist correctly, young Americans increasingly are willing to make a conscious trade-off between achievement and leisure. I believe American kids are working less hard because they place less value on money, houses, cars, etc. and more on relaxation, hobbies, and time with family and friends. I could be wrong, but that is what I sense.</p>
<p>Well, we haven’t yet tried a longer schedule in the United States yet. Perhaps students would flourish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Re-read your own posts. It’s clear you’re making assumptions. You assume that the author is talking about high-performing schools/students. The author is not; that’s clear.</p>
<p>Your second sentence in post 163 is just childish, and I’m glad another poster has already highlighted your comment.</p>
<p>There’s no need to get angry, epiphany, I’m not being sarcastic.
I didn’t mean to offend anyone, and I don’t assume that the author is talking about just high-achieving students. Like i said, I thought he was making assumptions about all students, because he didn’t clarify whether or not he was talking about high achievers or low achievers. I find this article a truly interesting debate, and I do apologize if anyone was offended by what I had to say…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think many would. A longer school day implies more structured time, and many (most?) kids will do productive things in a structured environment that they wouldn’t take the initiative to do on their own time.</p>
<p>I do believe this is true ^</p>
<p>Exactly my point earlier about the differences in educational methods in various countries affecting standardized testing scores.</p>
<p>Good point.</p>
<p>The longer, structured school day has been tried in charter K-8 and 7-12 schools in the last decade, and been found successful for previously very underperforming students at least. Those particular schools were also made for very homogeneous populations. (Just a piece of data, not an argument.)</p>
<p>agj brought up earlier an important point about methodology, and yes, that’s a factor to consider in success as measured by retention of information and application of information. It is not my observation that appropriate methodology is often being used in the lower and mid-performing level schools. Information not retained, concepts not understood with respect to application across platforms. Again, too often this is a result of so-called “efficiency” efforts. But education is not always efficient, and there are not always shortcuts that can achieve the same result as classic education once did (& which some of us were privileged to receive). Agj’s valid complaint about the volume of data required to pass & excel in courses does not necessarily equate to subjects well learned, for purposes (especially) of functioning well in college. I find it sad when teachers “cave in” to administration demands to complete a certain volume of curriculum as the most important priority.</p>
<p>150 days is the federal req; most state’s educational systems exceed that by more than 15 days. Florida requires 170 days plus 10 days worth of planning.</p>
<p>this article also completely ignores the value of extracurriculars, which is an overwhelmingly important part of our educational system. schools in most countries do not sponsor a wide variety of ECs</p>
<p>In CT, the minimum is 180 days and there are towns that go to 185. I’m surprised that the federal requirement is so low.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Considering how “well” we perform on international tests, we should --perhaps-- decide to reevaluate the importance of the ECs and refocus our efforts to the delivery methods of … education. While our system places an overwhelming importance on extracurricular activities, other countries tend to devote more time and efforts on actually teaching those pesky and insignificant matters of reading, writing, and basic mathematics.</p>
<p>And the best universities outside the U.S. don’t give a $h17 about your extracurricular activities and so-called leadership potential. They want to see good grades and high test scores, so they know you’ll succeed in your chosen subject. I’m not talking about China now, but rather the great Western European universities (e.g., Oxford).</p>
<p>I’m not stating an preference. I think being well-rounded is great, but a lot of well-educated people in the world manage to be well-rounded without being forced, and many who are not well-rounded are nevertheless highly successful. So…it makes me think.</p>
<p>xiggi, per my post 142, I think that the US system of college admissions generates significant over-investment in ECs (think about the number of posts that say, “I’ve done 400 hours of community service” or kids working hard to be good enough at sports to get a tip at a good school). As I mentioned, the origins of our current admissions system stemmed from the days when, if admission selection were only based on academic metrics, the vast preponderance of Harvard, Princeton and Yale admits would have been Jewish. And, so a reliance on ECs and interviews allowed anti-Semitic social engineering. Current admissions policies (“we focus on the admitting a diverse and interesting class, and reject more kids with 2400 SATs than we accept” or “we wanted a well-rounded class made of angular individuals” or “we want our class to exemplify the diversity of the country”) reflect a bit of an urge toward social engineering. In most cases the social engineering is a lot more benign than the HYP of old, though our current admissions ethos no doubt reduces the percentage of Asians at top schools. Whether such social engineering produces better results from a university’s point of view (professors may be dubious and I Princeton professors complained that they were getting too few of Academic 1’s under Fred Hargadon’s admissions policies; it may be good for later donations as it is likely that the absolutely best academically qualified kids may be less likely to amass fortunes and donate huge sums to the school) or society (unclear whether the social engineering is better from an economic productivity point of view; likely good from a social stability perspective).</p>
<p>The Oxbridge schools are a different ball of wax and are hard to compare, mantori. Kids entering Oxbridge have already done in British HS much of the basic undergraduate work in their field and are in effect, probably entering something closer to the last one or two years of US undergraduate school plus the beginning of US grad school. US grad schools pay no attention to ECs and so we might expect a school like a college in Oxbridge to admit students based upon how well they think they will do in their field, just like US grad schools. I’m not sure exactly what their admissions criteria are, but given the difference in educational mission, I am not surprised that they do things differently. What are the admissions policies of other Western European universities that are currently great (as opposed to “were great once”)?</p>
<p>What’s interesting is that American admissions, by virtue of the relatively ill-defined admissions criteria, are faddish. When I went to college, it was important to be well-rounded. There was a point at which going to Ecuador to work with the poor was novel and interesting and showed passion and admissions departments seemed to reward this. Given the apparent boost that gave in getting in, everyone started doing it and now one gets no or negative benefit for most social service trips abroad. Social service is now a minimal requirement – you might look bad if you haven’t done it – but it is unlikely to help. At the moment, the current fad is to be highly angular (show passion, be really good, even world-class, at something beyond the standard HS academic game). It is pretty clear that the opaque and shifting admissions requirements lead to interesting and not always the most beneficial time allocation choices by students, but it is unclear whether the admissions system’s continued social engineering is better or worse for universities and society.</p>
<p>One might say this: Success in any admissions process is a likely indicator of success throughout life, because in life one must be able to adapt to circumstances, understand the criteria upon which one will be judged, and then fulfill them. The criteria may be quantifiable (3.7 GPA, 2000+ SAT) or subtle (good eye contact, firm handshake). A student who can grasp the subtleties and devote a few years to mastering them, whatever they are, is likely to be successful in any endeavor.</p>
<p>If true, this leads logically to the conclusion that the best students in China probably have the same average aptitude and potential for career success as the best American students, even though they operate within very different systems. Surely there are a few well-rounded American students who would be unable to function in the Chinese meritocracy, as well as a few meritorious Chinese students who could never be club presidents or energetic volunteers for charity. But on the whole, I think most of them could adapt to either system because they are all smart and hard-working.</p>
<p>When you add the structured time of certain ECs (band practice every M and W nights, after school practice on Th afternoons, youth religious meetings on T nights, sports practices every afternoon, music lessons, Saturday competitions, Friday night games, etc.), I think that involved American kids have LOTS of structured time. I worry that they don’t have enough UNstructured time, like we did in the olde days.</p>
<p>I have rarely imposed structured time on my kids outside of school. I even started to get nervous because, by sophomore year, my son still wasn’t doing anything in particular with his free time.</p>
<p>Then, last year, boom. Theater, clubs, competitions, working out regularly. Like a light switch. I’m surprised, because I don’t do anything in particular with my free time, so he’s certainly not learning from my example.</p>
<p>I guess, with some kids, it just happens when it happens. (Still waiting for daughter, but she’s got a few years yet.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This may be true to a point. What if one system is designed to advance students on the basis of merit, while another is designed to advance those who are well-connected? In addition, I think there is still a more serious problem worth considering.</p>
<p>Some years ago, I heard an analyst talking about the differences between American auto executives and their Japanese counterparts. He said that American executives, who tend to be MBAs, seem to look for a political or a legal solution to corporate problems. They would try to get a bailout package, or a promise from law makers to keep foreign competition away etc.</p>
<p>Japanese auto executives, according to him, tend to be engineers, and they see corporate problems as engineering problems. So they would look at their line of cars and see how they can be engineered better to suit consumer demand. In short, they are looking for an engineering solution. </p>
<p>If what he said is correct, then the “type” of leaders we have has an impact on the type of solutions they would see. Sounds to me like it is a case of " if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail".</p>
<p>My feeling is that as the world gets more competitive over time, those countries with the “best” social and political systems will be the eventual winners in this economic horse race. I hope we are up to the challenge.</p>