This got me thinking. Although for many of us who do have a higher (and in your guys' cases higher than mine) education, which here really means not sleeping around all the time and paying a little attention in class, many seem like stupid bastards. But (and it almost pains me to bring this point up) if we compare the common knowledge of people back then to now I'd have to say that many people probably know more now then back then, we don't have the sense, skills, or problem solving of the time, but we have some more common knowledge. I'm talking way back, and this is a stretch to try and make this argument, but take math for instance.keja wrote:I kind of know what you mean, except in the old days kowledge and'learning were fun things. I think this might be because they didn't have as many stimulants and distractions as there is in the modern day.
Most people, even those bad at math, can figure out the price per pound, if they wanted to, of a product and make the better buy there. Most people can read and write good enough to make a statement on the internet, hell most people can use the internet and understand technology. That is something we are still teaching so hard core from back then and it bores people. This may have to do with the lack of interest in the schools.
Here we take math into trigonometry where most people in their lives wont even use basic algebra (in the states) unless their job requires it, and if it does you need a degree to work there. Our English (Literary classes w/e) we go into professional writing and college term paper studies, where you'd need to go to college to actually learn anyway. What I'm getting at is we are forced to go to high school by law, and learn things many will never use. They can see that and lose interest then drop out when class basically becomes more boredom and less of a benefit. But in doing this they have to work harder to get there GED (General Education Degree) Which many jobs require. However if they stay in the classes, the information goes over their head out of either general misunderstanding or lack of interest, have to redo a few years, which could have gone to working, and get their GED late.
Here's what I'm getting at. Uneducated people can generally do labor more efficiently and take orders to a point. Where as educated people will be able to make decisions and mental work more efficiently than them, but the labor less (more or less... just roll with it). What if we changed the GED requirements? Look at what will be NEEDED to get through life, to work a job, to live a life basically. That's were your education CAN end. If you want to move on from there, and do the algebra and such then, just like JUNIOR high (in the states), you can go to a JUNIOR college, to prep you for your focused studies, basically your generals for college. Then in college, you'd already have your generals, which almost every single degree will require (and I feel is a waste of time, more on that later) you could move directly to classes that SPECIFICALLY benefit your line of work. This would make it easier for flow of education.
It's a constant thing with me, my friends, and plenty others, that while going to college (which was taught to us to be our dedicated study for a career) we have to take all of these extra classes that have nothing to do with our degree or even career, just to get the degree. While going to school for programming in our school these are the credits we need.
6 in communications- Writing classes, public speaking
3 in Arts and humanities/Social behavior- Art classes/Music classes
6 in math and science - Math/Sciences/Lab sciences
This is just the general classes. That's 15 credits, none of your required classes will be in these categories.
http://bismarckstate.edu/studentguides/ ... heet07.pdf
There's the link, it's for 05-07 but the link was broken for the new one for me, and I don't think it's changed enough to matter.
Now if you read that you'll see you need 60 credits, 33-45 will be dedicated to your specific study. When I was going into networking my required classes fell on that 33 mark, meaning that I would need to take 12 more credits NOT required in my field just to get my degree. There are only a few 4 credit classes, some 3 credit, some 2 credit, and few 1 credit. So almost a third (because some of those extra classes would help a little) of my education was filler. My friend rick has taken all of the extra classes that would benefit his programming career and will still need 12 credits of extra classes.
Your total education at this not well recognized, cheap, low quality school will probably cost you something like 10000 usd, if you have cheap classes. My first year of a two year program cost me about 5k usd, and I didn't even pass all of my classes. About a third of that cost will be for classes you will not be interested in, and probably not help you either. Why not take those useless classes, reduce the cost, put them to a lower education school, and have it be less of filler classes, and more of say... life improvement classes. I'm taking a cooking class with my friend soon because it'll help us get by in life. But it won't have anything to do with programming or music, so why require an extra class in the program? Does anyone get what I'm saying? And further more (Lookin at you atom) are there glaring problems with this that I'm missing?
i totally don't see why are you all pessimistic about the members.. they come and go.
... Freshman year?!... 
