<p>I just dislike the idea of this cookie cutter education. Everyone has learned the exact same topics in the exact same way just to pass a test. We have kids who are studying to pass one test created by a very small group of people, who have certain perspectives.</p>
<p>Is that a healthy way to teach something like history? I would think it would be much better if there were different persepctives, different approaches that make for a better educated population and a more interesting college class.</p>
<p>If the kids in the class studied for a test, and all studied for the same test which is graded by people trained in the same way, is that actually beneficial?</p>
<p>i don’t think so. I know kids who got fives who are just regurgitators of data and facts, with no real insight.</p>
<p>Sad indeed. I am taking a class right now, and we have some students who never share in class, never ask a question, dont’ contribute in anyway to the discussions, but can ace a test. Is that what we want itn college, good test takers, but no real insight into the subject matter. DO we want kids who have all read the same books, the same texts, the same test prep books< or is it better to have kids come in with some variety of education, approaches, styles, questions, etc?</p>
<p>The latter sounds much more interesting and evocative.</p>