| ▲ | liveoneggs 5 days ago |
| My kids don't get textbooks in public school, are comingled with highly disruptive kids (except in the limited gifted classes) and the curriculum is accelerated way past where it was when I was younger. So my anecdotal theory is that the (public) education system is optimized to the edges, abandoning the middle entirely, resulting in majority decline. They do get computers with TONS of dumb-ass apps and zero reference materials. |
|
| ▲ | sgc 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| My daughter had no textbook for Freshman physics, which is obviously the hardest class she is going to have in high school (or top 2). It was ridiculous. We wound up supplementing learning materials and paying a tutor, but it all felt like making up for piss-poor course structure. Her (very intelligent but distracted) teacher barely knew where to send me for supplemental materials. And this is in the "advanced" high school that is very hard to get into. |
| |
| ▲ | liveoneggs 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | How do they not know?! The parents at my school would gladly purchase materials for the classes if anyone bothered to ask for them. | | |
| ▲ | bpt3 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Your average teacher is about as intelligent, motivated, and skilled as your average American. How much initiative do you think a random office or retail worker would put into solving a problem they were presented with that they couldn't answer immediately and had no impact on their lives? |
| |
| ▲ | mercutio2 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’ve never heard anyone say freshman physics is the hardest class in high school! Memorize 6 equations, 15 terms of art, and be competent at super simple algebraic expressions and you’re done. Physics in US high schools is taught long before calculus and usually before trig, which is dumb, but they compensate by making the calculation requirements something 6th graders routinely do. AP Calculus is even easier assuming you’ve taken trig and calculus, but I realize many Americans don’t. But freshman physics is… I generally say a waste of time it’s so easy. What did your daughter find challenging? | | |
| ▲ | sgc 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Most schools do biology > chemistry > physics, which is from funnest and easiest to most technical and hardest (plus digging in to the building blocks of the previous class). Physics first is very much throwing them in at the deep end of the pool when they have never taken a high school class at all. Frankly, I never got the details of the curriculum due to lack of printed materials. Parenting is not easy, and it's an art not a science. I got her a tutor instead of risking giving her the impression her grades were more important than her to me because I was pushing her too hard. Her tutor helped a lot and had plenty of materials to help out. So no, my kid's not dumb ;) | | |
| ▲ | shagie 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Physics also tends to expect some understanding of calculus... which tends to be a junior or senior level class. Having someone take a physics class when they're still struggling with single variable substitution in equations would be torturous to student and teacher alike. | | |
| ▲ | inemesitaffia 5 days ago | parent [-] | | There are calculus free science programs | | |
| ▲ | pests 4 days ago | parent [-] | | My high school back in the early 00s had an algebra-based physics track and a calculus-based. We were a smaller school so they alternated every year. Take it junior / senior year depending on what version you wanted to take. |
|
| |
| ▲ | SamBam 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Science teacher here. Physics First is absolutely not throwing them into the deep end, and should not be the hardest class. Physics First generally means physics taught without calculus, and most of it is stuff that could have been taught to most eighth graders. Not saying it won't be hard, but I don't want you to think it's some crazy torture. It should be no harder than doing Bio or Chem first, and for many kids it's easier. (Bio and Chem have way more memorization and vocabulary.) | | |
| ▲ | sgc 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I am sure you are right, my physics class was my hardest class in HS, but I took it my senior year. Regardless, her school is science and tech focused, and it was a hard class without materials to study for tests, and with minimal guidance. | |
| ▲ | sandworm101 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Mandatory xkcd: https://m.xkcd.com/435/ |
| |
| ▲ | donkeybeer 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At the high school level of presentation and rigor, Biology is hard and boring full of memorization without anything that reduces or compresses the data. Chemistry is very hard, lots of memorization and also lots of mathematical thinking. Physics is easy, very few basic laws that are quite intuitive and whose proofs you are not expected to learn and links in most directly to real life things you can feel and experience such as levers, moments etc. | |
| ▲ | legacynl 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In the NL we start with a combined chemistry/physics class that's mostly physics, after the 2nd year you get physics, chemistry and biology as separate classes. I don't think physics is hardest. On the contrary, physics is probably the best subject to start with, because everyone (even people who don't know about physics) have experienced physics. People intuitively understand that you go faster down a steep hill, than a gently sloped one. | |
| ▲ | KPGv2 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Most schools do biology > chemistry > physics I'm only aware of schools providing these three courses as independent of each other. Which makes sense, since they are independent. I took Chem as a sophomore, Physics as a freshman, AP Chem as a senior, and AP Physics as a senior. I didn't take a single bio course after 7th grade. For what it's worth, both Calculus courses were harder IMO than any of the aforementioned. | |
| ▲ | Jensson 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Most schools do biology > chemistry > physics, which is from funnest and easiest to most technical and hardest More like from what women prefer to what men prefer, they probably do it since most teachers are women and prioritize what girls want. Physics is "hard" as in not soft, not "hard" as in not easy. The reasonable order is the opposite, physics underpins chemistry and chemistry underpins biology. | | |
| ▲ | sgc 5 days ago | parent [-] | | There is a thing called pedagogy, and biology > chemistry > physics is a perfectly healthy order of discovery. I am not sure why there needs to be a battle of the sexes in the middle of this. | | |
| ▲ | int_19h 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It sounds like something specific to US education, though. When I was in school, physics actually started first in 6th grade, while biology and chemistry both started in the 7th grade - but from there on the classes were all going concurrently. | |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | Jensson 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I am not sure why there needs to be a battle of the sexes in the middle of this. I am not sure either, but there is, and ignoring it means that school gets optimized for girls and seatbelts optimized for men. You have to bring that up to change it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | bell-cot 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > So my anecdotal theory is that the (public) education system is optimized to the edges, abandoning the middle entirely... Yep. Those edges are pushed by very vocal parents, usually backed by large communities and interest groups. And the modern-day politics of American public schools (which generally have very low voter engagement) dictate that only the squeaky wheels get the grease. |
| |
| ▲ | bpt3 4 days ago | parent [-] | | My kids' schools are optimized for the lower edge, while providing some (but significantly less than the lower edge) additional support for the upper edge who almost exclusively come from upper income families who are assumed to be able to fend for themselves. I want all people to live fulfilling lives and reach their potential, but we are pouring limited resources into a bottomless pit while intentionally de-emphasizing the fundamentals of education that worked well for decades (or longer), and any question of those methods receives an extremely hostile response. It's no wonder that people are choosing to opt out in some form or another, or that the results are suboptimal. |
|
|
| ▲ | onetimeusename 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's kind of what I think but feel free to poke holes. It seems like there are three tiers. There's a closed off top tier of kids who get into top ranked universities. They go to highly ranked schools like selective high schools with high Ivy placement ranks. Those schools have different materials and more opportunities than most. These high schools are geographically mostly on the coasts. It's a totally different culture too where there's this years long effort. Then there's a middle tier, the majority of people, where they might end up at a university but it's not top rated. Increasingly it's not worth the money and simultaneously it seems like our country has become more credentialist about prestigious jobs. But a degree probably isn't necessary for most careers that don't have gatekeepers so for these people the education doesn't really have a big payoff and their education might get de-emphasized. Then there's the bottom tier which is self explanatory. |
| |
| ▲ | programjames 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In my experience, the "top tier of kids" is more cultural than school-specific. Even in schools like TJHST there's usually 10–30 students in the school that really care about achieving, while the other 90% don't put in much effort (beyond your typical public schooler). There are a few feeder (public) schools on the coasts, but most of the private schools differentiate by extracurriculars (fencing, rowing, horseback riding) rather than academic excellence. | | |
| ▲ | growingkittens 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Accelerated tracks would produce the top tier, which begin in elementary school - so it's a matter of how much your parents invested in your education before school. Any child can technically enter the accelerated track at any grade. The later they join, the more untaught expectations there are. The other students went over these things already in previous accelerated classes. There's no on-ramp. In the normal track, you don't eventually take calculus in math, learn much about labwork in science, or even learn how to write a research paper until the last year of classes at 18. (Source: class of 2005, USA) |
| |
| ▲ | liveoneggs 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUKaB4P5Qns | | |
| ▲ | hombre_fatal 5 days ago | parent [-] | | At least introduce the video with a blurb if you're just going to drop a link. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ivape 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So, basically the general distribution strikes again? I guess the floor fell out, but what evidence do we have that the ceiling also went up? Could just be the same or lower when we normalize for grade inflation and requirement destruction. |
|
| ▲ | buu700 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| So my anecdotal theory is that the (public) education system is optimized to the edges, abandoning the middle entirely, resulting in majority decline. Based on my anecdotal experience, this is the explanation that makes the most sense to me. I've been hearing constantly for at least a decade how atrocious American public education is, which I can't reconcile at all with my experience as a 2010 graduate of McLean High School. Either my experience was so far outside the national norm that I have no useful perspective on this issue, or the national discourse has been totally corrupted by vocal minorities and political agendas. Personally, my teachers were consistently amazing and brilliant (RIP Mr. Bigger), curricula were rigorous, and I learned a ton that prepared me well for my life and career after high school. Every time I hear about some factoid or perspective that American schools supposedly don't teach because they're propaganda farms designed to churn out uncurious low-skill workers, I roll my eyes as I vividly recall how it was explicitly covered in my classes. It's possible my experience may have been more the exception than the rule, given that most of my classes were advanced/AP/post-AP, but I also had some of my favorite teachers in regular and honors classes and never felt like I was receiving insufficient value for my time. Maybe I just got incredibly lucky, but I really have nothing but good things to say, and can't relate at all to the picture of American public education that's been painted in the media and social media. Granted, a lot can change in 15 years, and my perspective is already going to be skewed by having attended a top-ranked school in a wealthy district. On the flip side, my public elementary school experience was the polar opposite. In kindergarten I was tutoring third graders who needed help learning to read, but by second grade I'd been kicked out more or less for being bored with the level and pace of the course material. (Effectively. Specifically, the principal was going to move me to special ed unless my mom agreed to find a doctor willing to put me on Ritalin for my nonexistent ADHD. The 90s were wild.) So there's that. Luckily there are some great private schools in the area which my mom was able to make sacrifices to afford, but I can't help but wonder how many other kids weren't as lucky and had their whole life trajectories sabotaged from an early age. Granted, that particular principal was fired a few months after my de facto expulsion (for many very good reasons), so maybe this was all genuinely just an anomaly and very far outside the norm for completely different reasons than my high school experience. |
| |
| ▲ | loudmax 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I graduated from McLean High School in 1990. I had some fantastic teachers. McLean is absolutely an outlier. McLean's formula for success is to be located in an upper-middle class district with parents who value education and are wealthy enough to provide a stable environment, but not so wealthy they must send their kids to a private school. This formula isn't something that can be easily replicated or scaled out nationwide. The aspiration is to make excellent education available for all children, regardless of what school district their parents can afford to move into. This is a problem that looks easy on the surface, but it seems to be extremely difficult in practice. Education is a social benefit, and a lot of people seem to have rejected the notion that taxes should even pay for social benefits. | | |
| ▲ | buu700 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Agreed, I believe its success can potentially be replicated to some degree, but not its particular formula. I left a few thoughts on that in a follow-up comment below, but fundamentally my thinking is that comprehensive well-designed integration of AI throughout the system could allow schools to move toward leaner administrations with smaller numbers of higher-quality better-compensated teachers. Furthermore, technology like Waymo's could potentially make it viable to shuttle larger numbers of students to a smaller number of higher-quality schools. I'm also optimistic that physical goods as a whole will become much more affordable over the next decade or two for various reasons, which would further enable the median public school to approach the level of 00s MHS without relying on local concentration of a disproportionate share of national wealth. All that being said, my point wasn't "look how well-funded my high school was". Regardless of the reasons, it's a bright spot in a narrative of doom and gloom. Only the horror stories seem to get any attention, and if you listen to anyone with strong political views on the topic you'd think each state's governing party had turned its entire school system into a network of indoctrination camps. It's also clearly the case based on my disturbingly bad elementary school experience, and from what I've heard of some other local schools that should have comparable financing to MHS, that money isn't sufficient to provide a top-tier educational experience. I think it's important to look at schools and counties that perform well and carefully evaluate which elements can be used as a model to help improve public education as a whole, rather than assuming that absolutely nothing is replicable without gobs of cash. For example, off the top of my head, what if the federal government provided an annual budget for a handful of top-ranking districts across the country to have their best teachers of different subjects at each grade level oversee production and maintenance of open source course materials, video lectures, and possibly LLM chatbots? What if teachers all had some equivalent of GitHub to share and collaborate on that stuff? It wouldn't fix problems like rundown facilities or availability of computers and textbooks, but it would allow the worst Latin teacher in the country to provide something a lot closer to the Mr. Bigger experience, and that's just one idea. |
| |
| ▲ | Aeolun 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think it’s so weird that your level of education in the US (and most of the world really) seems to depend on which specific school you went to. The Netherlands has settled on three levels of schooling and within that level (according to capacity, and desire to learn) most of the schools show relatively little variation. The same thing continues into university, with pretty much 99% of all the universities in the Netherlands being public. You don’t select a university based on level of theoretical educational attainment, you select one by virtue of proximity, or which of them teaches the specific courses you are interested in. | | |
| ▲ | CalRobert 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Dutch PISA scores have fallen badly, though. We moved here from Ireland and the basisschools seem kinda mediocre compared to what we had in Ireland. My eldest certainly learned to read much better. Schoelenopdekaart shows pretty wide variation in how many students go on to vwo etc. | | |
| ▲ | Aeolun 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Fair, my experience is pretty much 25 years out of date. At the time it was pretty good. |
|
| |
| ▲ | buu700 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To expand on that a bit, based on my observations, I'd suggest the following conclusions: 1. Any reform effort needs to ensure that early education isn't overlooked. Elementary schools need capacity, processes, and expertise to appropriately deal with kids of all different knowledge/intelligence levels and backgrounds/skillsets in a personalized way, and they need oversight to ensure that lazy/incompetent/malicious teachers and administrators aren't making poor/abusive decisions that could have lifelong negative impacts on students. 2. AI will be a critical element of future reform. It's too incredibly useful of a learning and scaling tool to sleep on. Of course it's easy to misuse, but that's exactly why responsible use needs to be taught as part of research and fact-checking lessons. If they haven't already, schools need to start running small-scale experiments with incorporation of AI tools into curricula asap. Imagine how much more you could have learned with a virtual TA in your pocket on call 24/7 for those 13 years, with human teachers in the loop to help guide any self-directed learning you might have chosen to undertake. That bright-eyed kid who never stops asking "why?" will finally have a conversational partner who never tires of answering. All the panic about hallucinations sounds like the same sensationalist takes I grew up hearing from adults about the internet and Wikipedia — a perfectly valid concern, but not sufficient to negate the value of the resource in competent hands. | | |
| ▲ | liveoneggs 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I'd learn zero just like every other boy who would be 100000% distracted by technology and currently uses up tons of willpower every day to avoid playing games on their mandatory-issue-device. | | |
| ▲ | buu700 4 days ago | parent [-] | | That's a good point. Personally, I'm not in favor of unfettered personal device access in schools. Back in my day, you used school computers on the (filtered) school network and cellphones remained off and out of sight during school hours. It was a pretty good system that moderated distractions and goofing off reasonably well. I'm not sure when or why that changed, but I don't think it was a positive change. To your point, I would expect any sanctioned in-school student-facing AI usage to be through a school-provided platform on locked down school-owned hardware, in line with how computer/internet access already works (or how it worked 15 years ago). School-issued mobile devices with AI access could be a nice addition if they were locked down enough to sufficiently minimize distractions, but maybe sticking to laptops and desktops would work better in practice. |
|
| |
| ▲ | brettgriffin 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | buu700 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No, I'm not saying that. I already addressed my high school's ranking, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making by harping on that. My point is that US public education isn't universally bad, not that it's universally good. | | |
| ▲ | brettgriffin 5 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | buu700 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm not really sure what your problem is, but okay. My experience is a counterexample to the claim that American public education is bad. Maybe some public schools are bad, but not all. I chose to share a positive anecdote to balance out the negativity. | | |
| ▲ | brettgriffin 5 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | buu700 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No, I didn't proceed to say anything of the sort. You're attacking a straw man. Even if you choose to believe there's some interpretation of my original phrasing that could mean what you're suggesting, I've now clarified several times that the idea you're making a fuss over does not reflect my sentiments. | |
| ▲ | bell-cot 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > No, you chose to share the experience of a top 10 high school in a state and then proceed to say you don't understand how other people can say any of the other 25,000 public high schools in the country are bad. While that might be your cultural understanding of, or personal reaction to, what he said - he actually did not say that. If this subject is sensitive for you, or useful communication just isn't happening, then it might be better to drop it and move on. | | |
| ▲ | brettgriffin 4 days ago | parent [-] | | This isn't a cultural misunderstanding. I asked him to clarify what he couldn't reconcile and he didn't. To be clear, I didn't actually need him to clarify it. I wanted him to understand the fallacy in his position. Here's GPT's response to asking what the reconciliation is. You be the judge: > The user is having a hard time reconciling the consistently negative narrative they’ve heard about American public education—that it’s failing, propagandistic, or poorly preparing students—with their own lived experience, which was overwhelmingly positive. > They describe going to a well-resourced high school (McLean High, in a wealthy district) where teachers were excellent, curricula were rigorous, and their education prepared them well for life and career. That stands in stark contrast to the media and social media portrayal of American schools as “atrocious” and failing. > In short: they can’t reconcile the national discourse (education in crisis) with their personal reality (education that worked extremely well for them). To reconcile this, he needs to understand that his personal live experienced is independent of the experience lived by others with lesser resources. | | |
| ▲ | bell-cot 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Ah...okay. When interacting with GPT - telling it that it holds some incorrect belief, then insisting that it acknowledge its belief to be wrong, and that you are right - that conversation can go quite well. But when interacting with human beings - that conversation style generally works rather poorly. | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | buu700 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, at this point you're just lying, and I'm not really sure why. You're continuing to claim that I believe something that I not only never claimed to believe, but have repeatedly informed you I do not believe. Is there a particular reason you insist on attacking my character and/or intelligence based on a falsehood? |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | liveoneggs 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You should spend some time considering how that school got such a ranking in the first place. |
|
|