|
Author
|
Topic: Free Higher Education for Everyone?
|
Eleanore
Moderator Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 16, 2004 11:49 PM
  
http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definition_of_IQ.html
IQ - [n] a measure of a person's intelligence as indicated by an intelligence test; the ratio of a person's mental age to their chronological age (multiplied by 100)
from: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/IQ
The first link explains many things about IQ's. The second is just a definition I ran across. I suppose I'll be in the minority for saying this, but I do believe that IQ tests are not a waste of effort or time. I was tested at a young age, scored on the higher end and was labeled gifted. I can't imagine what my school experiences would have been like if I had not had the benefit of a gifted program. Nevertheless, being in such a minority made me a very easy target for all sorts of teasing, etc, not to mention a number of people complaining that it wasn't fair that I was in a special program just because "some test said you were smarter" and that the test is full of cr*p. LOL. I will say that none of my teachers ever told us we were smarter than other kids. The usual response to being asked, "what does it mean to be gifted" was this: being gifted (as measured by an IQ test) indicates that you have the ability to learn more and faster, remember information better, and apply that information more efficiently than the average person. It does not mean that you are more "intelligent" if intelligence means knowing more stuff ... it describes potential. Anyone can go to school and, barring a learning disability that is not appropriately addressed, study hard and memorize facts and figures ... and if they are also taught how to test, they can regurgitate those same facts and figures on an exam. Standardized tests like the SAT don't measure much more than what you've managed to memorize ... I don't feel that they measure how "smart" you are at all. Very intelligent people score poorly on SAT's and ACT's because they just didn't study or didn't care (or didn't get help for their testing anxiety and panicked themselves to failure). Some not quite so intelligent people score well because they made a concerted effort to do so, studying, pretesting, actually paying attention in class and making an effort to learn what they were being taught ... and had enough self-control not to panic about it. There are others, of course, who will score highly with no real effort and others who will score poorly because they simply don't retain that kind of information, etc.
I don't really see how the issue of IQ's entered into a discussion about free higher education in the first place. I feel that a standardized test that takes into account basic things like reading comprehension, basic writing skills, basic math skills, basic history, basic science, etc. would be fine. By basic I simply mean the accepted norm ... so if Algebra II is considered (by the board of education or whomever) to be a basic requirement for highschool then it should be tested. I do, however, feel that any proposed higher education admission exam should also allow for standardized tests in other areas ... for example, a music student could opt to take, aside from the basic exam, another exam that would test how much they've learned and even perhaps have an audition portion. I feel that a test like this for arts and such would be an asset to any student planning to major in the art of their choice, assuming they pass the basic exam as well. (Of course, I do feel that "passing" the exam should equal about a C ... which is considered average. Some people might feel that's too low, but I think average is fine.)
Yes, I do think that higher education, even if it's free, should also cater to the arts. I don't think anybody should be forced to take artsy classes, but certainly people who are proficient in an art have a talent that the rest of us do not possess, and should be able to pursue their artistic aspirations along with their regular higher education. I also think, although it may not be a popular idea, that perhaps there should be schools that are just academic and those that are just for arts ... perhaps for post graduate studies or even just right off the bat.
I don't know where sports could fall into this situation, except as the extracurricular activities they are. I dunno' know, maybe there should be a kind of program just for athletes who wish to forego education and pursue their athletic interests. I know that probably sounds like an awful idea to many, but perhaps the programs could be supported, in part or in whole, by the NFL, AFL, NBA, MLB, etc. I think athletic ability is very important and a talent just as special as artistic talents.
I realize that some people think it's unfair to have schools that are funded by the government just for arts or sports, but these are also probably people that are not talented in that way. To the average person, who is average at everything and perhaps not particularly talented at anything, it might seem like a waste of money. However, to a very artistic person or a highly athletic person, a basic education of the sciences and literature, etc, may seem like a waste of their talent.
If people could just learn to appreciate the strengths in others I think we'd be alot happier. Maybe in this way the arts and athletics can regain a sense of respect and purpose, and not be so very elitist, as higher education itself begins to be less elitist as it becomes available to all. Then, perhaps, the "outrageous" salaries that athletes and actors and what not make might begin to level out, naturally, because everyone who is talented in those areas would have an equal opportunity at them, while the average person will also be able to pursue their dreams as scientists, doctors, lawyers, writers, teachers, businessmen (and women), politicians, etc. with everybody finding the right spot for themselves having had access to the same opportunities.
Wow, I guess I'm a bit of an idealist. I just think people would be happier if they were pursuing their interests/dreams, and if the country, in general, was better educated. I do also like the idea of trade schools that are available to everyone because some folks just happen to be interested in those fields and, in reality, a songstress, a basketball player, a chef, a policeman, and a doctor are all fundamental careers of our American society, each with their intrinsic value and contributions to the rest of society. What a wonderful world this could be, indeed. 
PS I do feel that private instutions should still be available as long as people are willing to support them privately and students are willing to pay their fees.
------------------
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Ghandi IP: Logged |
Philbird
unregistered
|
posted September 17, 2004 12:13 PM
Eloquently said Eleanor!
Another idea I had was a mentor system, as opposed to a classroom education.
The big problem with our society is we are so willing to sue anyone who makes a mistake, that that system would never work, especially for a doctor.
About baring no learning disabilities...
You may note throught history, most genius's were learning disabled, mentally ill, and Beethoven was deaf. None of them had to take the SAT's.
In todays day and age it's very difficult to be original, or to astound the world, because so much has already been done. Perhaps that's the reason for testing.
You had an exellant idea about sports as well!
I did go to an art University. I also had to take liberal arts courses, however, there was a lot of flexibility in problem solveing. That doesn't mean we didn't learn the subjects. IP: Logged |
Eleanore
Moderator Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 17, 2004 12:31 PM
You're absolutely right, Philbird, about learning disabilities. Perhaps I should've been clearer. There are many highly intelligent individuals who have learning disabilities and challenges. One of my favorite things about being in the gifted programs was that learning was approached on many levels, from games and puzzles, movies, music, individual reading assignments, group projects, lectures, essays, etc. There was always a new way to learn or express what you learned. I remember doing a presentation for my AP/Gifted English Language and Composition class (11th grade) for Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms; we were supposed to find a creative way to express a part of the book that affected us deeply and make a presentation about it ... part of it included an essay, I believe, but for the presentations we had kids showing art work, acting out a scene, presenting a movie they made about it, etc. I sang a song that represented my chosen scene best. Certainly it took a lot of effort to prepare for, but it was fun as well as educational, and quite motivating.
The few classes I had, like electives, that were mixed, ie not solely for gifted students, were such a drag for the most part.  The regular kids didn't seem to be bothered by it, but I was usually bored out of my wits, sometimes to the point that I couldn't concentrate on the material and learning it was a real endeavor.
I knew many gifted kids who had problems listening to lectures and only did really well with visual presentations, and then there was this one kid who could sit in class, books closed, and listen to our teacher lecture and remember absolutely everything but when he had to read it himself it was harder. In many ways, learning was a challenge for all of us.By "learning disabilities" in my original post I meant severe problems like mental retardation and such. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I should've been more specific, hehe.
The idea of mentor programs appeals to me as well, and is still used in some situations. For example, in Florida, a massage therapist student can opt to train for a year or two, if I recall correctly, with a licensed massage therapist, in an apprentice type program. I am not sure, but I believe there is also some kind of standard course work provided to this team, and after the apprenticeship period is over the student can sit for the same licensing exam as a student who went to an actual technical school. I always thought that was awesome. 
------------------
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Ghandi IP: Logged |
Philbird
unregistered
|
posted September 17, 2004 02:19 PM
My sister was in a gifted program, I was in S.E.! I would help her with her homework because it did allow for creative problem solving. They did really cool stuff that was interesting. Why can't that program be available to everyone, or better yet, the way to teach everyone! Stars would shine! But I guess if you have too many stars shining, the robot system would break down. The powers that be would lose "power".IP: Logged |
Eleanore
Moderator Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted September 17, 2004 08:26 PM
I've wondered the same thing ... what if teaching were approached differently for all students, like in Montessori schools? I suppose it's easier to do with smaller percentages of the population, like S.E. kids and gifted kids. The average number of students in my classes, even throughout highschool, was between 13 and 20 at the most. In regular classes, we had at least 30 kids, some over 45, and then there were the infamous auditorium history classes ... imagine an auditorium packed to full trying to give a history lesson to teenagers! I'm sorry, I didn't know anyone at that age that had the attention span to sit with 300 something kids and listen to a teacher drone on and on about dates and dead folk.
I still believe standardized tests have their place, but I do feel that learning should be fun and in as relaxed a setting as possible. I also think exposure to different methods of teaching/learning is essential, if even just for the sake of interest and motivation. You can't force anyone to learn if they're not interested in learning. Perhaps a different style of teaching would encourage most kids to meet their teachers half way ... make the material interesting and they'll be interested and want to learn. And I don't mean just showing movies or whatever, but actually getting involved with students and being creative about teaching.
For example, my 12th grade English teacher (AP/Gifted Literature) brought slides of famous paintings when we were studying Shakespeare, and not just the ones that related to the material ... she helped us to better understand the tone of the works by comparing them to artist's styles; how images convey emotion and tone and, of course, the power of words to convey images. It was one of the most interesting lessons I ever had. Then we divided into groups for our final exams, each group chose a different Shakespearean work, condensed it into about 10 mins, and acted it out. I learned to really love Shakespeare in that class. But then, we only had about 4 or 5 groups to present. I can't imagine a class of 40 kids trying to do all that. There must be a way, there simply must be! Anyone know what it could be? ------------------
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Ghandi IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
