Or maybe the culture? After all, an education system is a product, a reflection of it’s culture.[/quote]
The educational system creates the culture.[/quote]
A culture usually exists well before any kind of organized educational system.
But even primitive educational systems (i.e. older human teaching younger how to hunt an animal) can exist prior to any definition of a culture. And at that point in human evolution, the two terms are inseparable. Just like it seems hard to differentiate science, math, music, religion and theatre in very primitive societies.
Chicken/egg arguments won’t solve this. It seems to be a kind of feedback loop.
No matter which comes first, both education and culture modify one another over time. Look at western education and western culture — each are far different from how they were 100 or 1000 years ago. Each modified the other. And it’s not like culture and education are acting in a vacuum — there’s also political, environmental and media forces acting on the equation.
If we want to blame the event in the OP on Chinese culture without taking into account the education system, or on Chinese pedagogy without taking into account the culture, or on both without taking into account the effects of external media influence (I’m thinking primarily America and Japan) we’re selling the whole equation short.
Education and culture are not a dichotomy but rather two elements in a complicated chemical reaction.
[quote=“lurkky”]
No matter which comes first, both education and culture modify one another over time. Look at western education and western culture — each are far different from how they were 100 or 1000 years ago.[/quote]
Actually, tt would be very easy to go back into a classroom 100 years ago in America. The basic philosophy (hell, even some of the textbooks!) and techniques haven’t changed. China/Taiwan would be different as it’s education system was imported from the West only about 100 years ago. Unfortunately for Chinese students, the Chinese didn’t also bring in a philosopy of questioning…they retained good old Confucius. The structure might look the same from the outside but the furniture is very different. Deng Xiaoping might have described it as “Education with Chinese characteristics”… 
You think the same things are taught in the classroom now that were 100 years ago?
In Taiwan? Yes.
Well…I know they’ve cut back on reading, writing and arithmetic. 
Read this as an example:
[quote]How exams are dumbing down
The moment of truth came when the class of '97 turned over their examination papers and started to read the questions.
'Give an account of the position and general structure of the liver. Where does most of the blood supplying the liver come from, and under what circumstances and in what manner does this blood vary in composition?' 'Draw a map of the West Coast of England and Wales, naming the counties on the coast and the principal capes and inlets. Mark the positions of Aberystwyth, Cardiff, Carlisle, Chester, Holyhead, Ilfracombe, Preston, Southport, and Swansea.'
'Determine by a geometrical construction the force which, together with a number of given forces, will keep a particle in equilibrium ...'
That’s enough to tax the most agile mind. Could you answer these questions? Could your children? These are typical of the examinations that 16-year-old children took in their stride. Not our children, mind you; these questions are not from the 1997 GCSE’s. They come from the School Certificate exams in 1897 - a century ago.[/quote]
Well…I know they’ve cut back on reading, writing and arithmetic. Read this as an example:
[quote]How exams are dumbing down
The moment of truth came when the class of '97 turned over their examination papers and started to read the questions.
'Give an account of the position and general structure of the liver. Where does most of the blood supplying the liver come from, and under what circumstances and in what manner does this blood vary in composition?' 'Draw a map of the West Coast of England and Wales, naming the counties on the coast and the principal capes and inlets. Mark the positions of Aberystwyth, Cardiff, Carlisle, Chester, Holyhead, Ilfracombe, Preston, Southport, and Swansea.'
'Determine by a geometrical construction the force which, together with a number of given forces, will keep a particle in equilibrium ...'
That’s enough to tax the most agile mind. Could you answer these questions? Could your children? These are typical of the examinations that 16-year-old children took in their stride. Not our children, mind you; these questions are not from the 1997 GCSE’s. They come from the School Certificate exams in 1897 - a century ago.[/quote]
brianjford.com/Exam%20standards.htm[/quote]
I’d rather learn about the history of the theory of relativity, the abolishment of slavery, the history of communications media, etc than memorize useless facts like the location of Cardiff. Modern pedagogy tries to teach you how to think, not how to memorize facts and equations. Google maps can tell you where Swansea is: computer software can determine geometrical constructions.
It’s kind of sad that you’re such a fan of the days gone by, floggings, hangings, firearms, the education system of 1897 — and you post on the internet. Maybe you could make woodblock prints instead, or carve your posts on the shells of tortoises and divine answers from the cracks.
Well…I know they’ve cut back on reading, writing and arithmetic. Read this as an example:
[quote]How exams are dumbing down
The moment of truth came when the class of '97 turned over their examination papers and started to read the questions.
'Give an account of the position and general structure of the liver. Where does most of the blood supplying the liver come from, and under what circumstances and in what manner does this blood vary in composition?' 'Draw a map of the West Coast of England and Wales, naming the counties on the coast and the principal capes and inlets. Mark the positions of Aberystwyth, Cardiff, Carlisle, Chester, Holyhead, Ilfracombe, Preston, Southport, and Swansea.'
'Determine by a geometrical construction the force which, together with a number of given forces, will keep a particle in equilibrium ...'
That’s enough to tax the most agile mind. Could you answer these questions? Could your children? These are typical of the examinations that 16-year-old children took in their stride. Not our children, mind you; these questions are not from the 1997 GCSE’s. They come from the School Certificate exams in 1897 - a century ago.[/quote]
brianjford.com/Exam%20standards.htm[/quote]
I’d rather learn about the history of the theory of relativity, the abolishment of slavery, the history of communications media, etc than memorize useless facts like the location of Cardiff. Modern pedagogy tries to teach you how to think, not how to memorize facts and equations. [/quote]
Yes, but how good a job are they doing? Many graduates of high school or the equivalent in the West know little about the theory of relativity, slavery, the history of communications media, etc., they can’t think well, and they don’t know many facts, either.
No offense intended, but that’s a pretty open-ended and opinionated statement, and could have been made about the grads of class of 1897 too. There was a stat that I can’t locate now that says the average age of a Wikipedia editor is 17. You can either use that to attack them for posting Pokemon articles, or praise them for posting more thoughtful ones as you see fit.
Well, it’s all good. As long as the high school students of today learn about transhumanism, they’ll be able to download the facts and the thinking processes later. 
Now that’s what I call a leg up on the nineteenth century!
Highschools were elite institutions for the best and brightest in the 19th century. Only 7% of teenagers between 14 to 17 still attended school in the U.S. in the 1890s. In modern times, we try to educate everyone, no matter how stupid. Emphasis on the word “try”. In the pre-modern age, the state wouldn’t waste time educating the uneducatable and let them drop out to work on the farm, like most kids did. It wasn’t so long ago - my grandparents didn’t obtain anymore than a 4th grade education, which was typical for the Great Depression generation. So the comparison between educational standards in 1897 and 2007 is meaningless. Higher education, until the mid-20th century, was a privilege of the rich or exceptionally bright.
The proper comparison would be taking the top 7% of students in America today and comparing them with the typical student in 1897.
Educational standards are dumbing down because educational institutions have to accomodate the majority of the population, and half of all people are of below average intelligence. It’s down to simple numbers. The dummies drag the smarties down. It’s the dark side of mass democratization - mediocrity becomes the standard.
I agree with almost everything you’ve said, Quentin… but isn’t “mediocrity becoming the standard” what democracy’s all about? Otherwise it’d be an oligarchy.
The drive to “be the best” in school is just a propaganda slogan, especially since people are graded on a bell curve in most classes in N. America. And rightly so. Geniuses will find a way to develop in spite of the school system, not because of it — as they always have…
America is not and never has been a democracy. The Founding Fathers were rightfully fearful of the uneducated mob and so designed the U.S. as a republic. Unrestrained democracy can be just as dangerous as totalitarianism or oligarchy.
[quote=“Quentin”]Highschools were elite institutions for the best and brightest in the 19th century. Only 7% of teenagers between 14 to 17 still attended school in the U.S. in the 1890s. In modern times, we try to educate everyone, no matter how stupid. Emphasis on the word “try”. In the pre-modern age, the state wouldn’t waste time educating the uneducatable and let them drop out to work on the farm, like most kids did. It wasn’t so long ago - my grandparents didn’t obtain anymore than a 4th grade education, which was typical for the Great Depression generation. So the comparison between educational standards in 1897 and 2007 is meaningless. Higher education, until the mid-20th century, was a privilege of the rich or exceptionally bright.
The proper comparison would be taking the top 7% of students in America today and comparing them with the typical student in 1897.
Educational standards are dumbing down because educational institutions have to accomodate the majority of the population, and half of all people are of below average intelligence. It’s down to simple numbers. The dummies drag the smarties down. It’s the dark side of mass democratization - mediocrity becomes the standard.[/quote]
Yes, they’ve made it so almost everyone can pass, so the education received is not very good. As more and more people go to high school and university, the level of education received is lowered. The best and brightest students end up being less well-educated than they could be.
The lowering of standards is obvious - my father and I both graduated from university, for example, but he is far better educated than I am. My grandfather only graduated from high school, but by today’s standards he seemed very well-educated, certainly more knowledgeable and intellectually-capable than the average university graduate.
It can indeed.
That said, I’ll add my favorite James Carey quote ever:
“No matter what form of government the U.S. has in the future, it will be called democracy.”
[quote=“bababa”][quote=“Quentin”]Highschools were elite institutions for the best and brightest in the 19th century. Only 7% of teenagers between 14 to 17 still attended school in the U.S. in the 1890s. In modern times, we try to educate everyone, no matter how stupid. Emphasis on the word “try”. In the pre-modern age, the state wouldn’t waste time educating the uneducatable and let them drop out to work on the farm, like most kids did. It wasn’t so long ago - my grandparents didn’t obtain anymore than a 4th grade education, which was typical for the Great Depression generation. So the comparison between educational standards in 1897 and 2007 is meaningless. Higher education, until the mid-20th century, was a privilege of the rich or exceptionally bright.
The proper comparison would be taking the top 7% of students in America today and comparing them with the typical student in 1897.
Educational standards are dumbing down because educational institutions have to accomodate the majority of the population, and half of all people are of below average intelligence. It’s down to simple numbers. The dummies drag the smarties down. It’s the dark side of mass democratization - mediocrity becomes the standard.[/quote]
Yes, they’ve made it so almost everyone can pass, so the education received is not very good. As more and more people go to high school and university, the level of education received is lowered. The best and brightest students end up being less well-educated than they could be.
The lowering of standards is obvious - my father and I both graduated from university, for example, but he is far better educated than I am. My grandfather only graduated from high school, but by today’s standards he seemed very well-educated, certainly more knowledgeable and intellectually-capable than the average university graduate.[/quote]
The best and brightest may be less well served by the education system, but I truly believe that with the raw, affordable computing power of a low-end PC, and the massive data stream that is the Internet, they have the resources to educate themselves in such as way that our grandfathers could only have dreamed of.
Well… a republic is one form of democracy. Jefferson liked the idea of pure democracy, but even he understood that a pure democracy worked best in a small geographic area with a small homogenous population (cities and towns, and even states). That’s why the US went with Madison’s idea of a republic. But, we are a democracy… just not a pure democracy on the national level.
quote]The best and brightest may be less well served by the education system, but I truly believe that with the raw, affordable computing power of a low-end PC, and the massive data stream that is the Internet, they have the resources to educate themselves in such as way that our grandfathers could only have dreamed of.[/quote]
Well, they certainly have access to a wider variety of pornography.
Alls I know is that I’m hella smarter than any damned kid under 35.
Here we go again, borderline racism wrapped up in a nice little debate.
Bob, your high and mighty attitude in this thread is sickening.
What did you expect from bob, god of the abstract commonsensical correct and typical, a display of false modesty? While bob may be irritating it must be admitted that he is always, right. Of course this must be frustrating to someone like yourself, an aspiring intellectual struggling under the burden of a third rate democratic education. Perhaps it would help if you thought of it as free tutorial. Like an old bull, young bull thing, perenial as the grass but not quite as green.