There’s more to life than a university course [Archive]

Hitcher

22nd January 2013, 18:53

This morning’s Dominion Post newspaper had as its front page lead a story titled “Degrees ranked by earning potential”.

Apparently officials at the Ministry of Education think that this is a good idea and a valuable use of their time. I disagree with them. Indeed I think that they’re nuts.

“Health” is the big winner in terms of median salaries earned five years after graduating, according to the Dominion Post. This is where the nonsense starts. This category will include doctors and surgeons, together with nurses, paramedics and, presumably nonsense health professions, like naturopathy. That is a very diverse range of occupations and earning potential within a category.

It will be the high income earners – the doctors and surgeons – who are inflating this category compared to others on the list. These will also be the folk to whom the focus of school leavers will be directed by their career “advisers”.

Bear with me while I do a reductio ad absurdum. The nation’s career advisers are spectacularly successful and all of the nation’s secondary school leavers decide to become health professionals and rock off to medical school.

First problem: they won’t all fit into our medical schools. New Zealand is already arguably over-graduating doctors, many of whom leave the country to avoid repaying their significant taxpayer-funded student debt.

Second problem: the academic competency bar for medicine is set pretty high – considerably higher than media studies, for example. Perhaps if Year 13 students work really hard, they could get their average performance over 50%.

Third problem: if every university student graduates as a health professional, how are the country's other professions going to be filled?

I think it’s tragic that a focus is on the earning potential of graduates. Whatever happened to students being encouraged to consider academic training in things they really enjoyed, perhaps were passionate about, and in which they stood a good chance of excelling?

A lot of people, myself included, gain a degree in a particular area of interest and then end up pursuing a completely different career. To explain, my degree is in agricultural science, my chosen profession is in communication. In all of the years I was in a position to hire communication staff, I never hired one with a communication degree. Call me strange but I always went for the applicant I thought was best suited to the role on offer.

I also think that it’s tragic that this nation’s tradespeople, service workers and general backbone of the economy don’t seem to be ranked as a priority by the Ministry of Education. Maybe that’s why our dairy industry has to import qualified and capable farm workers from the Philippines. I suppose that that is also a reality of so many school leavers having above average abilities. It could also be due to the fact that people on the unemployment benefit like to live in big cities, rather than in places like Stratford or Otautau.

I guess we’re lucky that fashion models didn’t come out in the top spot on the Ministry’s list. If they had, then this sage observation from Derek Zoolander would come into play, when he summarised his career: “Well I guess it all started the first time I went through the second grade. I caught my reflection in a spoon while I was eating my cereal, and I remember thinking ‘wow, you’re ridiculously good looking, maybe you could do that for a career.’”

Coldrider

22nd January 2013, 19:03

Dr Akzle I presume...

Woodman

22nd January 2013, 19:06

Oh I dunno, maybe if my teachers said to me and all the other slackers that if we studied we could have more toys when we grew up some of us might have listened and got off our asses.

Nova.

22nd January 2013, 19:07

I've never planned to go to university, all my life I have only one career that I have wanted, that is excavator operating, left school at 16 and have been doing so ever since.
no school can teach you what you need to know in this industry, and some people may wonder why they didn't get the job even though they trained at such and such school and have blah blah qualifications.

Coldrider

22nd January 2013, 19:12

Brian d marge

22nd January 2013, 19:15

A few points , and this is from the iPhone so the grammatical details can take a flying leap.
First, student loan , is a loan.` The never had it so good` received theirs free.
And wouldnt it be , bear with me while I reduce it to an absurd , or while I ...reductio ad absurdum

Apart from those , u do realize that education is now a business ( along the american model ) and has nothing to do with education ,,,,,,,,just bums on seats

Oh and if you try hard and get a degree you will earn lots more , probably enough to pay off your degree.....

Pawned , classic pawned

Stephen

Indiana_Jones

22nd January 2013, 19:38

Kids today are told 'if you don't go to uni, you'll become a nobody' etc, and they believe it. No wonder the trades and other technical trades are going down the shitter.

-Indy

Coldrider

22nd January 2013, 19:43

Kids today are told 'if you don't go to uni, you'll become a nobody' etc, and they believe it. No wonder the trades and other technical trades are going down the shitter.

-IndyI ride motorbikes to become a nobody.

Zedder

22nd January 2013, 20:04

University certainly used to be an interest based system of education rather than rankings and money.

Sadly, the whole thing is geared towards money and more worryingly, elitism thanks to the USA "waking" up TPTB to saving money and user pays kicking in.

Eventually, only the rich will be able to get a varsity education and perhaps a return to feudalism will be via knowledge instead of force. I have seen cases where people with a degree have taken over a management position purely due to having a degree, little experience was evident.

Plain old degrees are never enough we were told, they should lead to a Masters then of course a PhD which apparently is where the big bucks are. The problem is, there's way too much theory and lack of being in touch with the real world when pure academia is concentrated on. A quick check of the number of PhDs in parliament certainly gives a clear picture of the dangers of that.

The End

22nd January 2013, 20:06

Kids today are told 'if you don't go to uni, you'll become a nobody' etc, and they believe it. No wonder the trades and other technical trades are going down the shitter.

-Indy

Can verify this. It was absolutely shoved down our throats in the last couple of years of high school. "What are you doing when you finish school" "Which University are you studying at" "Oh you're doing that course, well done!" "Oh, you're not going to uni....?"

I know of people who struggled in school who were convinced by their teachers to go to uni just to do a BA, no offence to anyone who has/is/will be doing one, but it is basically a time filler degree....

mashman

22nd January 2013, 20:11

Call me strange but I always went for the applicant I thought was best suited to the role on offer.

You're strange. In IT (development) I've met everything from safa cops to bio-chemists to aerospace engineers to jewelery designers. Some self trained and some degree qualified. I'm one of the degree qualified ones and I scraped through my degree as that's all I had to do (student loan and all). One of the things, ok probably two or three... is that the degree qualified ones can potentially earn more as they are seen as being more capable of learning as they have proven it. Moderately amusing given that I probably put in minimal effort to learn my trade than the guys who did it off of their own backs. We're also gonna lose these guys who seek further understanding in their career paths by doing associated degrees, something I can't imagine as being a good thing. It seems that we're destined to become a bee colony full of one trick ponies, as very few will be able to just dump their life and pursue something that interests them once they get bored of spending 10 years doing the same thing. Such a waste of potential talent and all to make some useless cunt a truckload of money :facepalm:

However, as always :innocent:, I have the solution: What we're going to do is train as many people to be Dr's, Pharmacists, Vets and Radiographers... personally I'd like that to be 25% of the population. Then what we're going to do is legalise drugs and drop the drinking age to 15. Pharmacists can release a few dodgy pills in amongst the good stuff to keep them all ticking over, just in case the world gives up drinking. We'll release the odd virus here and there, overly sugary food and enamel eating bacteria in the water. The country will be filthy rich and we'll all be happy. What? What do you mean what about the other 75% of the population? They don't matter, they're just the unskilled workforce who decided that they didn't want to do anything with their lives. They deserve everything they get... musicians and artists indeed, they're more valuable when they're dead. Now be quiet and just do as you're told.

Oh and the 25% will come from good wealthy homes, none of this lottery and aptitude nonsense.

speights_bud

22nd January 2013, 20:38

Just throwing it out there...

My wife spent 4 years at university studying, i spend 4 years doing a trade. We both work 40 hour weeks now and i still earn significantly more at the end of the week. She was one of few who actually managed to find work in her field after graduating. Lucky for us she lived with her parents so doesn't have a student loan to re-pay.

In her Year group alone there were approx 100 Teachers graduating. Now i don't know how many other teachers were graduating at other universities but i doubt that there are hundreds of teachers retiring each year for these new students to replace.... Most of her classmates who didn't manage to find work either ended up enrolling in another course or working in what might be described as a menial job (burger flipping). Nothing wrong with that, gotta have someone to do it but its a shame seeing that they now owe money and haven't moved forward into what they trained for.

Might be worth adding that from teachers must complete 2 years of registered work in the first 5 years after graduating or else they have to re-sit a one year teaching course i think.

I spent 4 Years in an apprenticeship (Precision Machining & Toolmaking), I don't owe anyone any money and am looking at buying a house using a significant deposit earned by wages, all within 2 years of Getting my cert. Yes things have gone pretty well for me and i haven't been made redundant with the economy stuff.... But it's no wonder young people can't afford to buy a house and the housing market is 'out of reach' when they are probably paying half their mortgage back in Student load repayments...

Bikemad

22nd January 2013, 20:45

you lost me at dominion post

Road kill

22nd January 2013, 21:20

Great,another page of nice try no wonder you never wrote that book of boring shit.:rolleyes:

Berries

22nd January 2013, 22:50

you lost me at dominion post
You got that far?

Gremlin

23rd January 2013, 01:05

Kids today are told 'if you don't go to uni, you'll become a nobody' etc, and they believe it. No wonder the trades and other technical trades are going down the shitter.
What Indy said. Too many now think that after college comes Uni. Then they lose their way and have no idea what to do with themselves.

There is nothing wrong with trades and plenty of money can be made if you're willing to work hard.

On the other hand, I was one of those that went straight from college to uni, but had a clear idea I was gaining a piece of paper that may assist in my career path down the track (BCom). Shows I stood still and studied for a few years (applied myself etc). I knew the real learning, useful to my role (IT Engineer) would be on the job... very little of the degree was useful. However, should that evolve into management or similar, then the paper stuff is useful.

Teachers right now... years ago a diploma was standard. Now, if you have a degree you're on a higher pay scale than teachers holding diplomas who have been teaching for decades.

Brian d marge

23rd January 2013, 01:36

Now hang on here. not saying that a degree is a bad thing far from it the information is actually quite useful. Look at my field , I see this all the time . When designing a part, I reach for a pen and paper , calculate it , then build it ( now here is my weak point , I am NOT a machinist and watching me on a lathe , ,,,,well I wouldnt be in the same room it would probably be too dangerous )

On the other hand a experienced machinist from experience would " Judge the thing " based on common sense and experience. This is fine for many applications , but not for others ( Denco??? and Brittain for example ) and tend not to reach for a pen and paper ...

Probably IMHO, the most effective , and again im just guessing would be an person who did an Engineering degree first THEN became a machinist or similar . ( I refrain from the opposite way round as I worry about picking up habits , rather than coming from first principles , if you can see what Im getting at ) Knowledge then experience , or an apprentiship ... insert smiley !

ANYWAY I digress , it really is about being sold a pup , with regards to education , a model promoted by America and a model that is geared for profit , not education.

breach of contract I reckon.

Stephen

pps there is NO way in hell Im spell checking this on this crappy device , so live with it !

bosslady

23rd January 2013, 06:42

Hitcher

23rd January 2013, 07:57

SS90

23rd January 2013, 08:03

bosslady

23rd January 2013, 08:12

I think when you're a youngin there is a lot of pressure/expectation from some parents to go to University. My Dad wanted me to go to University or do some kind of course after highschool (I moved out of home when I was 16). I ended up leaving school when I was 17, getting pregnant, having a baby (which usually comes after the pregnant bit), had another baby blah blah blah. Anyway the reason I didn't really pursue any further education, at the time, was because I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WANTED TO DO!! And I didn't see any point in doing xyz course just to keep my Dad happy when I was probably going to a) give up/drop out or b) follow a different career path anyway.
University is not the be all and end all but I wouldn't begrudge anyone who does choose to further their education, good on 'em, I hated school, wasn't for me and I couldn't concentrate. Now, I have a very good job in a company that is going places and I feel fortunate because most of the people working here started from the very bottom and worked their way up (just like me). Most of us don't have any kind of formal qualifications, just EXPERIENCE and heaps of passion and exceptional work ethic. I'm lucky that I work for a company that is like this, but they are few and far between and now that we are getting bigger - the new people I am seeing come in, all very qualified and experienced (although we still encourage people to work their way up through the ranks). I'm lucky that I found such a company but luck has nothing to do with how/why I worked my way up nor do qualifications (cause I don't have any) it's all been hard work, determination, passion, work ethic etc. which 'ya know? A lot of youngins seriously lack now days, that's what we should be worried about!

imdying

23rd January 2013, 08:37

Dr Akzle I presume...

What he said... Hitcher, of all people on here, I expect you to be able to think a bit more logical than that :rolleyes:

Ocean1

23rd January 2013, 08:39

NZ has some sad days coming in th next decade as far as skilled trades people go, teens nowadays want big big money and lots of time off to spend it, as for working Saturdays..... Bwahahahahah.

Try getting a Plumber,Mechanic or Builder in ten years time, it's what has happened already in places like the UK and some parts of Europe, and NZis catching up fast!

Yes, the old MOW, NZR and NZED pumped out generations of well trained engineering tradesmen, until they were first squeezed for budget by sucsessuve restructures and then flogged off. The trade training institutions seemed to be the only ones pointing out the problem associated with those decisions, then. The govt simply said "if private industry want skilled workers they'll make them themselves". Private industry leaders had no idea what the trades did let alone the cohesive organisational clout to train them. You can tell, what was once "fitting, turning and machining" is now "maintenance and diagnostics", because that's what they think such people are used for.

Tradesmen did start to appear again, a decade and a half later, when the shortage had made a large enough dent in export numbers that various industries, polytechs and councils cobbled together a semi-workable system. But the damage had been done, the new recruits are too little, too late, and the old guard are begining to retire, engineering degrees and trades are right at the pointy end of the medium term skills shortage.

And yes, gen Y as a rule don't see any link between work and income, (the real ones, not the oxymoronic one) whatsoever.

Banditbandit

23rd January 2013, 08:45

By devaluing some degrees, Mr Joyce can convince himself to remove funding from those courses.

A real politician would point people towards education that would ultimately gear up the country to earn overseas funds,
rather than the taxpayer to prop up medics that would go overseas to earn healthy incomes.

Yes. The Government tried this wth the Performance-based research Fund - Once upon a time reseafrch funding for universities etc was tied to stduient enrolments - but this new idea was to identify which areas of research were strong in New ZEaland, invest money in that area to improve the economy ... all degree teachers in GOdzone were required to participate ... Some of us were very amused when the results of the first round of this bul shit showed our top research area was (drum roll here ...) PHILOSOPHY .. well fuck me - putting lots of money into philosophy is going to do wonders for our econonmy .. yeah right.

The ones you think might rate highly, especuially in the agriculture area, did not ... for the results of the last round (2006) of this attempt at social engineering go here http://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Publications/pbrf-quality-evaluation-report-25-May.pdf

A few points , and this is from the iPhone so the grammatical details can take a flying leap.
First, student loan , is a loan.` The never had it so good` received theirs free.

Yes . this has pissed me off for a long time .. we got our tertiary education basically for free . and now my generation turns aroudn asnd charges the next generations .. Fuck politicians ...

rom those , u do realize that education is now a business ( along the american model ) and has nothing to do with education ,,,,,,,,just bums on seats

Oh and if you try hard and get a degree you will earn lots more , probably enough to pay off your degree.....

Pawned , classic pawned

Stephen

Yes - from the inside this is very very true - but then the Natuional Government that the majority of Godzone's dickheads voted for have turned everythign into a business ..

University certainly used to be an interest based system of education rather than rankings and money.

Sadly, the whole thing is geared towards money and more worryingly, elitism thanks to the USA "waking" up TPTB to saving money and user pays kicking in.

Eventually, only the rich will be able to get a varsity education and perhaps a return to feudalism will be via knowledge instead of force. I have seen cases where people with a degree have taken over a management position purely due to having a degree, little experience was evident.

Plain old degrees are never enough we were told, they should lead to a Masters then of course a PhD which apparently is where the big bucks are. The problem is, there's way too much theory and lack of being in touch with the real world when pure academia is concentrated on. A quick check of the number of PhDs in parliament certainly gives a clear picture of the dangers of that.

Zedder - I agree with mosty of this (and yes, I do work in Academia . and when I'm at work I'm pretty good at the game. But I've never been one to think that putting alphabet soup after my name is the way to go ... I have litle or no respect for most of the people I work with - and most the PhDs I know are the worst ... fuck I have no idea how I ended up here ... it was not a conscious chice ... I was offered a job when I needed one and took it .. life paths are strange - but they pay me a fuck of a load of money ... so I'm not arguing ...)

Education has always been about producing better people ... not simply job-focused ... a "plain old degree" is perfecftly adequate for that ... it's only the fucking intelectuals who believe otherwise (definition of an intellectual? - A person who has been educated beyond their ability!)

But our Government is determined to get return-for-investment .. so paying for people's education (and despite the high loans etc, the Governmetn does pay somthing like 70-80% of the cost of tertiary education) .. which means the Government wants people to be educated to get higher paid jobs, earn more money for the economy and pay more tax ... Stephen Joyce and Co do not givde a fuck abiout the well-beng of people ..

We have made a fetish out of qualifications - jobs people would have got off-the-street and been very good at - now require a certificate, jobs that once required a certificate now require a diploma and previous diploma-jobs now require a degree .. and people who struggled at school but would be very good at what they do in the workplace now have to struggle through classrooms to get the certificate to get the job ... it's bullshit ...

I've even seen a unit standard in "shovelling shit .. Its actually called "Cleaning a stable" (go here to read it http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/framework/search/results.do?type=UNIT&query=1648 ) ... but it's a course in shovelling shit .. and it takes 20 hours of learning to pass it ... buthow absurd is that ??? And the Government is paying institutes and schools to teach this course on shoveliing shit - even more absurd.

FUck . I can rant about my sector for hours ... enough already ...

bogan

23rd January 2013, 08:53

What he said... Hitcher, of all people on here, I expect you to be able to think a bit more logical than that :rolleyes:

Indeed, one would hope that any prospective uni student would look a bit further than a single dominion article :rolleyes: The logic in Hitcher's rants definitely seems to be receding of late...

Swoop

23rd January 2013, 09:58

Remember too that a lot of qualifications that used to be diplomas are now marketed as degrees. Tertiary institutions should take a long hard look at themselves regarding this "dumbing down" of degrees and the expectations that are often unjustifiably raised in the minds of those who achieve them.

Sadly we are going to see even more of this. With the changes underway with qualification reviews, funding for lower level courses will get diverted to secondary schools, leaving the tertiary institutions scrambling for funds.
This means that mid-level courses will be "puffed up" to look like something more grandiose or will be adapted into something already existing which will essentially water down that qualification in some way.

Also, "career advisors" are the bane of this country. It would be desirable to have an open-season on the buggers.

Banditbandit

23rd January 2013, 10:15

Sadly we are going to see even more of this. With the changes underway with qualification reviews, funding for lower level courses will get diverted to secondary schools, leaving the tertiary institutions scrambling for funds.

I'm not sure I agree .. I think that might be a good thing. The level 1-2 courses tend to be at what I think of as fifth and six form (Is that Year 11 and 12?) .. and a lot are for numeracy and literacy ... having worked at that kind of level, tertiary education is being asked to clean up the messes left by the fucked up high school teachers ... tertiary education should be about extenting people from high school .. maybe in terms of job training or in terms of extended study into academia ... Tertiary education should not be teaching numeracy and literacy - it is forced into this situatuiion becase secondary schools have failed to teach some people to read and write ..

This means that mid-level courses will be "puffed up" to look like something more grandiose or will be adapted into something already existing which will essentially water down that qualification in some way.

Not sure what you mean here ... I get the "puffed up" (and largely agree) I'm just not sure about the whole sentence - can you expand it?

Also, "career advisors" are the bane of this country. It would be desirable to have an open-season on the buggers.

Too generalized .. I largely agree with you - but I've worked with some excellent careers advisers as well .. but they have worked in tertiary institutes, not high schools. The basic message of the high school ones I have experience of should be "I fucked up - so I know from experience ..."

Zedder

23rd January 2013, 10:45

Zedder - I agree with mosty of this (and yes, I do work in Academia . and when I'm at work I'm pretty good at the game. But I've never been one to think that putting alphabet soup after my name is the way to go ... I have litle or no respect for most of the people I work with - and most the PhDs I know are the worst ... fuck I have no idea how I ended up here ... it was not a conscious chice ... I was offered a job when I needed one and took it .. life paths are strange - but they pay me a fuck of a load of money ... so I'm not arguing ...)

Education has always been about producing better people ... not simply job-focused ... a "plain old degree" is perfecftly adequate for that ... it's only the fucking intelectuals who believe otherwise (definition of an intellectual? - A person who has been educated beyond their ability!)

But our Government is determined to get return-for-investment .. so paying for people's education (and despite the high loans etc, the Governmetn does pay somthing like 70-80% of the cost of tertiary education) .. which means the Government wants people to be educated to get higher paid jobs, earn more money for the economy and pay more tax ... Stephen Joyce and Co do not givde a fuck abiout the well-beng of people ..

We have made a fetish out of qualifications - jobs people would have got off-the-street and been very good at - now require a certificate, jobs that once required a certificate now require a diploma and previous diploma-jobs now require a degree .. and people who struggled at school but would be very good at what they do in the workplace now have to struggle through classrooms to get the certificate to get the job ... it's bullshit ...

I've even seen a unit standard in "shovelling shit .. Its actually called "Cleaning a stable" (go here to read it http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/framework/search/results.do?type=UNIT&query=1648 ) ... but it's a course in shovelling shit .. and it takes 20 hours of learning to pass it ... buthow absurd is that ??? And the Government is paying institutes and schools to teach this course on shoveliing shit - even more absurd.

FUck . I can rant about my sector for hours ... enough already ...

Yeah, ROI is the focus indeed. Forget about education for educations sake, it's become really mean spirited. And I agree the fetish is for qualifications.

However, would I do it all over again? Yes, because what I did was a great blend of theory and practical. However, I would probably explore engineering more although that's only recently and wasn't something I was interested in years ago.

Indiana_Jones

23rd January 2013, 12:02

I spent 4 Years in an apprenticeship (Precision Machining & Toolmaking), I don't owe anyone any money and am looking at buying a house using a significant deposit earned by wages, all within 2 years of Getting my cert. Yes things have gone pretty well for me and i haven't been made redundant with the economy stuff.... But it's no wonder young people can't afford to buy a house and the housing market is 'out of reach' when they are probably paying half their mortgage back in Student load repayments...

Fortunately, I am currently going through a similar process, where my employer is paying me to do a diploma in civil egineering (the replacement for the old CE). Hopefully once I'm done, the wife and I might be able to move out of Auckland and get a house.

What Indy said. Too many now think that after college comes Uni. Then they lose their way and have no idea what to do with themselves.

Agreed, if you want to go to uni because you know what you want to do and the piece of paper will help you, go for it. I have met a few people who did BA's etc because they found it 'interesting' like it was a fucking hobby and break from the real world lol.

There is nothing wrong with trades and plenty of money can be made if you're willing to work hard.

My old man has made a bit of cash due to the lack of kids in the industry.

On the other hand, I was one of those that went straight from college to uni, but had a clear
Teachers right now... years ago a diploma was standard. Now, if you have a degree you're on a higher pay scale than teachers holding diplomas who have been teaching for decades.

The degree vs diploma bit is something that has been a bit of an issue it seems in the civil engineering industry for a little while.

Back in the day your technical people were held in the same regard as the engineers with BEs, now some of the grads I've met are cheeky cunts who think just because they have a degree, they're somehow entitled to talk down to other people like summer students and draughtsman.

Of course the situation is gonna get interesting in the next 10 years as a lot of the senior technical people retire and there's no one there to replace them.....

-Indy

Swoop

23rd January 2013, 12:48

The level 1-2 courses tend to be at what I think of as fifth and six form (Is that Year 11 and 12?) .. and a lot are for numeracy and literacy ... having worked at that kind of level, tertiary education is being asked to clean up the messes left by the fucked up high school teachers ... tertiary education should be about extenting people from high school .. maybe in terms of job training or in terms of extended study into academia ... Tertiary education should not be teaching numeracy and literacy - it is forced into this situatuiion becase secondary schools have failed to teach some people to read and write ..

Not sure what you mean here ... I get the "puffed up" (and largely agree) I'm just not sure about the whole sentence - can you expand it?
Sadly, you are correct. The schools have failed with numeracy and literacy and tertiary institutions were forced to incorporate this into their existing higher level courses to try and sort out this problem. This is now being handed back to those that screwed it up in the beginning (probably quite rightly so!), the secondary schools.
This leaves higher education with a shortfall in students and funding options.

So, tertiary institutions will take one of two routes to keep "bums on seats" to keep their own bean-counters happy.
1: Take their L1 / L2 courses that cannot now run, and add some lovely content to them so that they appear to meet funding levels required of higher levels. Or,
2: Take a higher level course L4(?) upwards and stick the "old" L1 / 2 course on the front of it (probably well camouflaged however) as a compulsory pre-requisite but which becomes a component of the old higher level course - which waters down the mana of that course.

Either way, high schools need a boot up the arse with regards to their output. Back to the three R's!

Zedder

23rd January 2013, 12:58

Agreed, if you want to go to uni because you know what you want to do and the piece of paper will help you, go for it. I have met a few people who did BA's etc because they found it 'interesting' like it was a fucking hobby and break from the real world lol.

-Indy

So what if people go to University because it interests them? I've met BA grads who are making good money and I've also met guys who started one degree but changed it for something "more interesting". The real world of Uni is study and exams etc not a hobby.

bogan

23rd January 2013, 13:22

So what if people go to University because it interests them? I've met BA grads who are making good money and I've also met guys who started one degree but changed it for something "more interesting". The real world of Uni is study and exams etc not a hobby.

This is where a good careers adviser is required. Its best for everyone if you get a job in an area you find interesting, and furthering you education in said area helps you get a job. But, the likelyhood and details about such jobs at the end of the degrees should be covered in great detail.

Zedder

23rd January 2013, 13:35

This is where a good careers adviser is required. Its best for everyone if you get a job in an area you find interesting, and furthering you education in said area helps you get a job. But, the likelyhood and details about such jobs at the end of the degrees should be covered in great detail.

True Bogan. It certainly makes sense to have a job that's interesting and pays well.

Indiana_Jones

23rd January 2013, 13:50

So what if people go to University because it interests them? I've met BA grads who are making good money and I've also met guys who started one degree but changed it for something "more interesting". The real world of Uni is study and exams etc not a hobby.

I have no issue with people who want to do that and pay for it. What I don't want is someone taking out a loan from the tax payer for something they're doing just for kicks and nothing else.

No issue with people changing a degree etc, stuff like that happens.

And as for study and exams, yes of course the people who want to do well will knuckle down and get on it with. But I have met and see so many drop kicks in my class who turn up, watch youtube on their laptops and leave the lecture after 15 mins. Come test time 4 of them wrote their names on the test paper and handed it back to the lecturer :blink:

-Indy

Hitcher

23rd January 2013, 14:22

What he said... Hitcher, of all people on here, I expect you to be able to think a bit more logical than that

More "logical" than what? If you disagree with anything I've written, I won't be upset.

Banditbandit

23rd January 2013, 14:26

I have no issue with people who want to do that and pay for it. What I don't want is someone taking out a loan from the tax payer for something they're doing just for kicks and nothing else.

No issue with people changing a degree etc, stuff like that happens.

And as for study and exams, yes of course the people who want to do well will knuckle down and get on it with. But I have met and see so many drop kicks in my class who turn up, watch youtube on their laptops and leave the lecture after 15 mins. Come test time 4 of them wrote their names on the test paper and handed it back to the lecturer :blink:

-Indy

Yeaup .. I've had students in class who fucked around and when I asked them what they were doing it my class it appeared that they were too young to get the dole ... but if they enrolled in a class they got student loans and allowances ... not a good reason to be there ... and they piss me off too ..

The thing is - they have to pay the loan back .. and it will come back to bite them later ..

imdying

23rd January 2013, 14:41

More "logical" than what? If you disagree with anything I've written, I won't be upset.You've over extended, I think, in your extrapolation of what the flow on effect of such a report will be. Just a little too absurd to be logical in this case.

yungatart

23rd January 2013, 14:44

I'm not sure I agree .. I think that might be a good thing. The level 1-2 courses tend to be at what I think of as fifth and six form (Is that Year 11 and 12?) .. and a lot are for numeracy and literacy ... having worked at that kind of level, tertiary education is being asked to clean up the messes left by the fucked up high school teachers ... tertiary education should be about extenting people from high school .. maybe in terms of job training or in terms of extended study into academia ... Tertiary education should not be teaching numeracy and literacy - it is forced into this situatuiion becase secondary schools have failed to teach some people to read and write ..

Sadly, you are correct. The schools have failed with numeracy and literacy and tertiary institutions were forced to incorporate this into their existing higher level courses to try and sort out this problem. This is now being handed back to those that screwed it up in the beginning (probably quite rightly so!), the secondary schools.
This leaves higher education with a shortfall in students and funding options.

Either way, high schools need a boot up the arse with regards to their output. Back to the three R's!

So secondary schools have mucked it up? Those kids who come to secondary school, unable to read and write, count past 10 and sit in a chair for more than 5 minutes at a time have already had 8 years of formal education where those basic things should have been learned. So maybe the failure is a primary school one, or perhaps our pre schools aren't up to scratch? What about our parents?
Many is the child who is failing at school because there is a history of errors on the part of all involved with raising that child. Don't blame the secondary schools...the failures happen long before they even get there!
Rant over...as you were...

imdying

23rd January 2013, 14:49

Agreed. I could read, write, and do algebra (albeit basic) before high school. But then, my parents made sure of that.

superjackal

23rd January 2013, 14:53

University certainly used to be an interest based system of education rather than rankings and money.

Sadly, the whole thing is geared towards money and more worryingly, elitism thanks to the USA "waking" up TPTB to saving money and user pays kicking in.

You're right on the money thing. I've looked into completing a degree recently. I finished my studies 15 years ago and guess what, you can't cross credit any quals older than 10 years!

Why you ask? Because they can't sell you a course if you can cross-credit it.

So, anyone with quals older than 10yrs? Sorry, not recognised...

Huh????

Hitcher

23rd January 2013, 16:25

You've over extended, I think, in your extrapolation of what the flow on effect of such a report will be. Just a little too absurd to be logical in this case.

That's the whole point of reductio ad absurdum, unless I'm mistaken.

Swoop

24th January 2013, 10:00

So secondary schools have mucked it up? So maybe the failure is a primary school one, or perhaps our pre schools aren't up to scratch? What about our parents?
Many is the child who is failing at school because there is a history of errors on the part of all involved with raising that child. Don't blame the secondary schools...the failures happen long before they even get there!

So, allowing people to fall through the gaps is acceptable? Each level should be doing their job and passing on capable students BUT at the end of the day the secondary schools should be sorting this stuff out prior to a student leaving school to get a job or go on to higher education.

I think this is exactly what is going to be happening... very soon.

Ocean1

24th January 2013, 10:52

So, allowing people to fall through the gaps is acceptable?

It is when the alternative is to have teachers short change the 90% who are capable of learning that subject at that level.

There's always those who can't quite get it, and most primary and secondary teachers I know do spend a bit more time with them if they think that's all it'll take. But we all know that some of those who aren't performing at that level never will, either they simply can't do it or in some cases they don't want to do it.

You can force that last group to learn, at least i reckon you can, but the kids in question would be the tip of a huge iceburg of objections to that.

imdying

24th January 2013, 10:53

That's the whole point of reductio ad absurdum, unless I'm mistaken.You are quite correct, just that in this instance it was absurd enough to dilute your argument to far, IMO.

Banditbandit

24th January 2013, 11:19

James Deuce

24th January 2013, 11:24

It is when the alternative is to have teachers short change the 90% who are capable of learning that subject at that level.

There's always those who can't quite get it, and most primary and secondary teachers I know do spend a bit more time with them if they think that's all it'll take. But we all know that some of those who aren't performing at that level never will, either they simply can't do it or in some cases they don't want to do it.

You can force that last group to learn, at least i reckon you can, but the kids in question would be the tip of a huge iceburg of objections to that.

Two of my three kids didn't meet National standards last year and one of those two never will. There is a move afoot to remove him from the school based education system. This will become the norm if National lead the next post-election coalition and will include mild autists right through to microcephalic cerebral palsy sufferers . National have been trying to remove the profoundly disabled from the education system since their re-election and have telegraphed this philosophy since the mid-2000s, for those bothering to pay attention. Economically this reduces income for those families affected and ties one parent to the house because you are required by law and threat of prosecution to educate your children so you have to enroll your child in a Home Schooling programme (NZ Correspondence School and other accepted alternatives) and then demonstrate that you have attempted each and every module and then bear financial penalties for failing to meet National Standards - reduced funding and support mostly.

Given the current bulge in the autistic population, this is going to have profound social implications in the near future, because whether or not those kids can be taught is not the issue. Meeting National Standards is the issue and Teachers, Schools, and Parents currently bear the penalty for those "failures" who don't meet National Standards. National Standards rates of success and failure have KPI implications for Teachers and Schools, which with some kids, maybe 5% of the school population, can only be described as desperately unfair.

Ocean1

24th January 2013, 11:48

Two of my three kids didn't meet National standards last year and one of those two never will. There is a move afoot to remove him from the school based education system. This will become the norm if National lead the next post-election coalition and will include mild autists right through to microcephalic cerebral palsy sufferers . National have been trying to remove the profoundly disabled from the education system since their re-election and have telegraphed this philosophy since the mid-2000s, for those bothering to pay attention. Economically this reduces income for those families affected and ties one parent to the house because you are required by law and threat of prosecution to educate your children so you have to enroll your child in a Home Schooling programme (NZ Correspondence School and other accepted alternatives) and then demonstrate that you have attempted each and every module and then bear financial penalties for failing to meet National Standards - reduced funding and support mostly.

Given the current bulge in the autistic population, this is going to have profound social implications in the near future, because whether or not those kids can be taught is not the issue. Meeting National Standards is the issue and Teachers, Schools, and Parents currently bear the penalty for those "failures" who don't meet National Standards. National Standards rates of success and failure have KPI implications for Teachers and Schools, which with some kids, maybe 5% of the school population, can only be described as desperately unfair.

Treating kids all the same never did make any sense, on that I agree with National. The current cookie-cutter aproach is producing poor results for some kids and beacuse current dogma has it that "all kids are equal" the blame for that failure is being spread in all directions. Ditch the blame, recognise that all kids can't be best served by the current system and supply the education every kid's parents pay their taxes for. Simple, innit?

Ocean1

24th January 2013, 11:57

Fuck .. I can't believe that you writing off childen at PRIMARY SCHOOL ... sure there are a few with learning diasbilities .. but primary school children ???

I'm not writing them off. I'm suggesting they be taught seperately, where thay can be given the teaching they're not getting in mainstream classes. I've sat in enough classrooms twiddling my thumbs while the teacher focusses on the few "problem" kids to have a fair idea how many hrs are wasted.

James Deuce

24th January 2013, 12:01

Treating kids all the same never did make any sense, on that I agree with National. The current cookie-cutter aproach is producing poor results for some kids and beacuse current dogma has it that "all kids are equal" the blame for that failure is being spread in all directions. Ditch the blame, recognise that all kids can't be best served by the current system and supply the education every kid's parents pay their taxes for. Simple, innit?

So you support forcing the parents of disabled kids to educate their kids at home, precluding the ability to earn the second income that average people need to be able to break even? You have to understand. National want to end mainstreaming and replace it with nothing, but there is no proposal to change the legal framework to excuse those kids and parents from the legal obligation to educate those children that won't meet National standards. Given that these parents are unable to earn that second income, they are then excluded from participating in a "special school" even if someone were to setup such a school because they can't afford the fees they'd need to pay because they would have to fund both the child's education and pay the wage of the legally required teacher's aide.

Don't get me wrong. I don't support mainstreaming. I think it dilutes effort and means that the kids at the lower end of "normal" don't get the support they need and similarly, kids at the other extreme miss out on attention they need. But to kick the disabled out of schools, replace it with nothing, and still legally require you to educate them to the same standard while punishing you for not meeting National Standards is just shitty.

MSTRS

24th January 2013, 12:07

... National ... is just shitty.

Forgive the (mis)quote in the interests of underlining reality.

Banditbandit

24th January 2013, 13:35

Treating kids all the same never did make any sense, on that I agree with National. The current cookie-cutter aproach is producing poor results for some kids and beacuse current dogma has it that "all kids are equal" the blame for that failure is being spread in all directions. Ditch the blame, recognise that all kids can't be best served by the current system and supply the education every kid's parents pay their taxes for. Simple, innit?

Naaa .. you're so wrong ... Good teachers teach a class ... not individuals ... that doesn't mean NOT giving attention to each individual .. it would take quite a few teacher training courses to get you to see this point .. combined with a basic understanding of human develoopment, Piaget and all ... and I'm not wasting my time on you ...

Good teachers know that good students in class lift the whole class, while poor students drag down the class ... a well balanced class with a good teacher and every student is lifted up .. too many bad students and the class is dragged down ... drop all your bad stduetn sin one class and you have a recipie for failure ...

Poor stduents need good teachers - good students can learn from anyone ...

James Deuce

24th January 2013, 14:39

Brian d marge

24th January 2013, 16:51

Further to my argument

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0607/S00405.htm

Bill English refused to release the speech. I listened to it on National Radio and asked for a copy. The above was the result when I dug my heels in and demanded that it be released.

Within a month of National's re-election in the first term of this current Government, National removed all Government funding for Early Intervention centres and pre-school disabled child education. They neglected to factor in that most people who subscribe to Early Intervention and actively educating disabled children, might actually come from their own potential voter base and were forced to reinstate Government subsidies for these services. It still cost us $800/term. But we could cut back and afford that.

Under the guise of National Standards, National are doing their best for it to be untenable to educate the intellectually disabled, but there is NO plan to provide alternate services of ANY description.

Am now in a position to comment
My oldest , bright as a button , ( is the ONLY one so far to figure out the remote control and the DVD player ) , is struggling at Kanji and reading. We thought he was , Stupid .
looked at the short bus for a while , untill ( thank you Japanese education system ) the powers that be , explained it to us ,,,because he is getting twice the amount of infomation as the others due to Language , culture and a idiot father ( me) ) he simpliy is processing stuff as fast as he can , in the order of his growth , ie his brain is growing and at different times he excels or fails , depending

point being , he doesnt fit into, the main stream and will fail the relevant tests , with one assume life long consequenses.

Now we were lucky to find this out , so we could take action, ( none or reduced , or different homework , short learning spells etc)

Imagine if we hadnt found out ....

Stephen

Ocean1

24th January 2013, 16:56

So you support forcing the parents of disabled kids to educate their kids at home, precluding the ability to earn the second income that average people need to be able to break even?

No. I support this:

Ditch the blame, recognise that all kids can't be best served by the current system and supply the education every kid's parents pay their taxes for. Simple, innit?

Don't get me wrong. I don't support mainstreaming. I think it dilutes effort and means that the kids at the lower end of "normal" don't get the support they need and similarly, kids at the other extreme miss out on attention they need.

Which is pretty much exactly what I said.

But to kick the disabled out of schools, replace it with nothing, and still legally require you to educate them to the same standard while punishing you for not meeting National Standards is just shitty.

But I wasn't suggesting replacing it with nothing. At the very least your kids should have access to as much educational value anyone else's do, and a bit more is probably well justified. I'm not aware of what plans National have for education, I don't take any notice of what any of them say they're going to do, it has little to do with what eventually happens. If, in fact they ever suggested I might be responsible for certain performance expectations wrt my kids education while denying me access to the means to manage that, you don't really expect I'd take that seriously? You might see me laughing on the behive steps on the six oclock news, but I probably couldn't be bothered expending that much energy on such transparent bullshit.

Ocean1

24th January 2013, 17:03

Naaa .. you're so wrong ... Good teachers teach a class ... not individuals ... that doesn't mean NOT giving attention to each individual .. it would take quite a few teacher training courses to get you to see this point .. combined with a basic understanding of human develoopment, Piaget and all ... and I'm not wasting my time on you ...

Good teachers know that good students in class lift the whole class, while poor students drag down the class ... a well balanced class with a good teacher and every student is lifted up .. too many bad students and the class is dragged down ... drop all your bad stduetn sin one class and you have a recipie for failure ...

Poor stduents need good teachers - good students can learn from anyone ...

What? I must be wrong because you don't agree? And you can find an industry expert who's opinions might be able to be stretched so far as to fail to agree with me also? Please.

Have another look, I'm suggesting those at both ends of the bell curve are probably better served in a different environment from the other 90%. I'd be astonished if different teaching techniques and a different sillybus didn't prove more effective for both the 10% and the 90%.

Ocean1

24th January 2013, 17:07

National are doing their best for it to be untenable to educate the intellectually disabled, but there is NO plan to provide alternate services of ANY description.

There's a lot of things I'd cut from the budget to make education for everyone a reality. Again.

Let me know if you need pitchforks sharpened.

James Deuce

24th January 2013, 17:47

The content of that 2006 speech was the counter-point to National's desire to make the parents of disabled children fully responsible for those disabled children, that is, no healthcare, no education, no benefits, no financial support, etc, etc. The rationale is that rational people would abort a disabled child in utero, or one carrying the markers for a debilitating disease, such as genetic markers for autism/muscular dystrophy and so on. No Stephen Hawkings under that ruling. This is National's Policy in regard to carrying disabled children to term, based simply on the economic cost to society. In my case there was no hint there was anything to suggest that number three was Down Syndrome. No nucal fold visible on scan, no proportional distortions. The proportionality became apparent, but again not obvious, in the third trimester. Even now the proposed testing regime requires an amniocentesis which has a 20% chance of spontaneous abortion which would be distressing if there was in fact nothing wrong with the child.

In regard to the education question, that Bill English speech was predicated on the economic cost of mainstreaming disabled children, and the "distraction" of having disabled kids in the classroom, coupled with the policy detailed in my first paragraph. From the National Party's perspective this means that disabled children do not deserve education or community support as they shouldn't have been born. This isn't fairyland supposition, but actual National party policy that they want to implement and have stabs at every time they change the Minister of Health, or when in opposition, the shadow Minister. As I said earlier they almost dismantled the Early Intervention and Early Childhood Education systems for intellectually disabled children almost as soon as they gained office in the previous term, but stiff parental opposition and rank and file National Party membership opposition (that is probably a misnomer, but you know what I mean) forced a rethink, however is has been indicated this funding will most likely be pulled permanently should National regain Coalition primacy next election. The current Interregnum was to allow these centres to find alternative funding, but there is no corporate sponsorship for perpetually negatively loaded economic units. If it can't be cured to provide a cute back story, no one wants to know. Nor will a National-led Government provide funding for the modern equivalent of IHC and Home of Compassion Schools. Their goal is to make parents completely responsible for cradle to grave care. I imagine that many Kiwibikers will find this completely acceptable and will be giggling at their, "You may have a Gold Medal, but you're still a Ranga Mongol" posters, while sipping their Pinot and complaining about the irresponsible parents who gave birth to such a monstrosity.

The average age of Down Syndrome children's Mum's is trending down and is predicted to hit the low 20s in about 5 years time. The reason for this is that lower socio-economic Mums don't have access to sophisticated tests and decent Obstetricians and so don't have the opportunity to abort. One trend that is raising its ugly head is that infant mortality for Down Syndrome kids in the US is rising rapidly as the Mum's have no medical insurance and can't afford the almost guaranteed 2-3 month stay in neo-natal intensive care and heart surgery that 70% of DS kids need to survive. Those that do survive generally end up living in abject poverty because 90% of relationships fail after the birth of an intellectually impaired child. Usually the man runs away because a spaz doesn't fit his picture of masculinity and parenting opportunity. One thing I'd like to say is that if you have actively aborted a Down Syndrome foetus, that is your choice. DO not go running up to people with Down Syndrome children and start blubbering. Get some decent counselling (it is available) and deal with it. Some parents of DS children aren't as understanding and respectful of other people's right to choose the right solution for them as Heather and I are. It is also very uncomfortable to have to deal with. We have enough issues without yours as well. Having said that you are free to vent to me or Heather. We do care and understand.

The infant mortality and poverty trap proposed by National, coupled with no educational or healthcare opportunity for the disabled children is a carefully engineered way to clean up those kids that aren't terminated during pregnancy. I talk mostly about Down Syndrome because I have experience, though I know parents of other children, such as those afflicted with tuberous sclerosis are reporting that they are being denied healthcare options such as palliative drug programmes and surgical options to reduce discomfort, simply because the prognosis is bad. Rather than treat, the end is hastened along and the kids in question suffer horribly and parents are left feeling incapable of doing the best for their kids. Some are trying to raise funds for treatment in Australia. It won't change the outcome, but the kid in question will have a modicum of peace prior to dying.

Flip

24th January 2013, 18:35

Remember you voted for them. Thanks guys.

Brian d marge

24th January 2013, 18:48

Remember if you remove the socially disadvantaged or mentally challenged , effectively remove most of New Zealand from the classroom .....especially in Auckland

Insert popcorn wearing smilely wearing flack jacket ....

Stephen

Brett

24th January 2013, 22:45

Well, I sort of took a more odd route, while my wife took a more conventional route and studied, and qualified as a GP.
I worked fulltime as a junior construction project manager while studying a NZ Diploma in Construction Management fulltime as well. Starting pay was shit, $25k per annum back in 2000, but progression was fast and lucrative post qualification and a bit of experience, with guys around 28/29 years of age with 5 or so years experience earning 120-130k per annum. Come the recession, work dried up in NZ in a matter of months, I was fortunately/unfortunately overseas at the time between jobs and came home to a job market in 2008 that was at a complete and utter standstill and after 9 months of job searching I changed tact and went into business management. Having succeeded in this, I saw the logic in going back to Uni part time (3/4 time) to complete a Bachelor of Business Studies majoring in Business IT and Marketing, not because I needed the letters, but because it gave me a structured foundation upon which to practice business. It has been hard yakka and fairly up/down, but now on the otherside, I see many opportunities. I still engage in project management on a very specific contract by contract basis from time to time.

On the other hand, my wife studies medicine, graduating top in her class and slowly working her way through the programme untill finally achieving qualification (and shortly fellowship) with the RNCGP's. She has worked tirelessly and very diligently, driven by a passion for helping people and for community health (not money driven at all) and now is in the fortunate position to have exceptional opportunities available to her, both here and in Aussie. The benefits of this type of study clearly pay off.

However...getting into medicine is extremely competitive, good luck to those who try. It takes exceptional grades from school, a very specific type of attitude and even then a good dose of luck. Whoever said earlier that we are pumping out too many doctors needs to have a look at the stats. There are many many jobs available, it is the consultant positions that are hard to obtain, particularly in fields such as Orthopaedic surgery.

My opinion, is simply that each person has unique talents and strengths, and that study for study sake is retarded. Work to your strengths and your passions, because in that, there is a much much higher chance for success. Will my degree in Business help me earn more...maybe, but I know for certain that it has given my incredibly valuable skills that I didn't have before.

Oh....I have paid back my first student loan, and am making strong inroads to my second. My wife is also making solid dents in hers....pay your debts folks.

Brett

24th January 2013, 22:47

There's a lot of things I'd cut from the budget to make education for everyone a reality. Again.

Let me know if you need pitchforks sharpened.

Education can be gained from life...from actually engaging in the world and doing stuff. You don't need to pay to go to Uni to learn many of the things universities teach. (excluding the likes of medicine, engineering, law...)

yungatart

25th January 2013, 08:00

Education can be gained from life...from actually engaging in the world and doing stuff. You don't need to pay to go to Uni to learn many of the things universities teach. (excluding the likes of medicine, engineering, law...)

What you say is very true. Unfortunately qualifications from UoL (University of Life) aren't worrth diddley squat to lots of employers

Banditbandit

25th January 2013, 08:54

can find an industry expert who's opinions might be able to be stretched so far as to fail to agree with me also? Please.

I work in Education and have post-grad qualifications in the industry - does that make me an industry expert in your eyes?

Have another look, I'm suggesting those at both ends of the bell curve are probably better served in a different environment from the other 90%. I'd be astonished if different teaching techniques and a different sillybus didn't prove more effective for both the 10% and the 90%.

And I have seen and experienced exactly the oppositie .. especially for the so called bottom 10% - where students did even worse by being taken out of mainstream classes and placed in classes apparently tailored to their needs ...

Banditbandit

25th January 2013, 08:55

Education can be gained from life...from actually engaging in the world and doing stuff. You don't need to pay to go to Uni to learn many of the things universities teach. (excluding the likes of medicine, engineering, law...)

Yes .. I agree .. and I'm just crazy enough to respect life learning over classroom learning (even if I do work in a classroom ...)

Zedder

25th January 2013, 09:56

Ocean1

25th January 2013, 11:44

Education can be gained from life...from actually engaging in the world and doing stuff. You don't need to pay to go to Uni to learn many of the things universities teach. (excluding the likes of medicine, engineering, law...)

It can. And many people need a differtent form of help to access that sort of education too.

I work in Education and have post-grad qualifications in the industry - does that make me an industry expert in your eyes?

Yes. It makes your opinions more likely to align with your industry's consensus on the issue. And if you've got the education you infer you'll know that makes your opinion no more likely to be "correct".

And I have seen and experienced exactly the oppositie .. especially for the so called bottom 10% - where students did even worse by being taken out of mainstream classes and placed in classes apparently tailored to their needs ...

I understand the influence daily exposure to contemporary norms has on every kid, is that the magic you need in your class? You can make room for that and still tailor teaching requirements to different students, but you seem to be saying it's nescessary for those with different requirements to have 90% of the class waiting for their teacher to finish dealing with them before they get the education they need. That was my experience of early school and from that level of expertise I can tell you it's a massive waste of time. It'd be cheaper in the long run to supply two teachers per class than have our kids taught half the time. I'm talking primary/secondary levels, here.

Banditbandit

25th January 2013, 13:03

Yes. It makes your opinions more likely to align with your industry's consensus on the issue. And if you've got the education you infer you'll know that makes your opinion no more likely to be "correct".

Bwhahahaha ... you could be quoting me on that one ... I'm the terrorist the education authorities let in the door carrying a bomb ... I don't agree with the industry consensus .. and I challenge it at every oportunity ...

I value my opinion no more highly than any other .. unfortunately I have a low opinion of my own opinions .. and a low opinion of other points of view as well .. we are all fucked up human beings ... the important difference for me is that some of us have power and some of us have none .. and I usually have a lower opinion of those who have power!!!

I understand the influence daily exposure to contemporary norms has on every kid, is that the magic you need in your class?

Close .. I would not phrase it that way - but close ... I don't like "norms" (bullshit concept) but you are close here.

You can make room for that and still tailor teaching requirements to different students, but you seem to be saying it's nescessary for those with different requirements to have 90% of the class waiting for their teacher to finish dealing with them before they get the education they need.

No - what you describe to me is poor class management. This has to do with the way the teacher sets up the class to work to free up teacher time to give individual attention ... if students are waiting on a teacher in the way you describe that teacher is not demonstrating good teaching techniques. I do not support such actions .. the solution is better teachers, not segregated classes.

I do tend to think concrete - so you would need to give me a specific class to talk about how this might happen .. but I'd be inclined to give small groups somethign to do .. so the stduents suprot each other (even at primary level .. keep it simple) ... or give them extension work which tey had no chance of completing in the time frame - so the bright kids did not finish and then wait around ... then value the outcomes of the poor students as well as the high achieving students ... Plenty of possiblities ... splitting them devalues the lower achievers .. and makes them even worse ..

I do agree that the situation you describe is not acceptable .. I think there are other in-class options whichare better for the students ..

Not boasting .. I've turned poor achieving high school dropouts into straght A post-grad students when everyone else had written them off ... and they have gone on to high paid jobs, chaging their benefit-dependent lifestyle completely around ... I'm not fucking superman .. if I can do it so can others ... The biggest key is to demonstrate to EVERY student that you value them and what they learn ... take an interest in them as people ... and take an interest in what they achieve ...

That was my experience of early school and from that level of expertise I can tell you it's a massive waste of time. It'd be cheaper in the long run to supply two teachers per class than have our kids taught half the time. I'm talking primary/secondary levels, here.

I accept that - and it was my experience of primary and secondary school .. it's been 40 years since I left high school - I wonder how much of an issue it is today .. Judging by the students I see coming from secondary school I think there are huge issues there ... and this may well be one of them ..

But the solution lies some where different to what you suggest ...

James Deuce

25th January 2013, 13:56

Sorry. I'm going to do it again.

Mainstreaming doesn't work for the Intellectually Disabled.

The very best use of those years at school is establishing peer relationships for those kids and for the parents of those kids. Once these people are adults we have to work together to support them in their living environments, employment, and day to day life and mainstreaming prevents these relationships from forming by isolating one or two kids in geographically distant locations. Mainstreaming does divert resources and places unnecessary classroom loads on people who have no training in special needs. The practice of hiring teacher aides at minimum wage means a spotty service at best.

The biggest "complaint" we would have is the disappointment teachers and teacher aides experience when #3 appears to unlearn something. Linear learning isn't an option and despite discussing brain abnormalities common to all Down Syndrome people, it is difficult to communicate how learning is impacted to someone who has absolutely no background in the neurology and physiology of DS. The few special needs professionals we have dealt with in the education system have completely different expectations and an utterly different outlook on what is an appropriate baseline for developmental status and behaviour from #3 and teachers and teacher aides are always shocked to find that #3 is actually astonishingly high functioning. However because he is not a clear speaker most people assume he can't understand what they are saying. We have on occasion been asked to pick him up from school because he is crying and uncooperative only to find that teacher and teacher aide had been openly discussing #3's lack of performance, success and inability to keep up in front of him.

The bell curve being discussed should be those that meet the developmental norms only. Mainstreaming is an unpleasant cruelty for disabled children, parents, teachers and now with National Standards in place an unreasonable load for schools to carry.

Banditbandit

25th January 2013, 14:54

Sorry. I'm going to do it again.

Mainstreaming doesn't work for the Intellectually Disabled.

Sorry .. but my experience tells me that is too broad a generalization .. I have seen an intellectually disabled person pulled from mainstream for just that reason .. and got worse than they were .. I have equally seen them put into mainstream and thrived far better than where they were ..

You are making a way too broad generalisation which in my experience can work to the detrement of disabled people ... and my wife, who is an expert at working with these people - if there is such a thing .. would also disagree with you ..

The very best use of those years at school is establishing peer relationships for those kids and for the parents of those kids. Once these people are adults we have to work together to support them in their living environments, employment, and day to day life and mainstreaming prevents these relationships from forming by isolating one or two kids in geographically distant locations. Mainstreaming does divert resources and places unnecessary classroom loads on people who have no training in special needs. The practice of hiring teacher aides at minimum wage means a spotty service at best.

Hell yes .. my wife can't even get a job any more ... she'd be more than happy to spend every hour in class with these kids - but the schools can't get the funding to pay her time ..

The biggest "complaint" we would have is the disappointment teachers and teacher aides experience when #3 appears to unlearn something. Linear learning isn't an option and despite discussing brain abnormalities common to all Down Syndrome people, it is difficult to communicate how learning is impacted to someone who has absolutely no background in the neurology and physiology of DS. The few special needs professionals we have dealt with in the education system have completely different expectations and an utterly different outlook on what is an appropriate baseline for developmental status and behaviour from #3 and teachers and teacher aides are always shocked to find that #3 is actually astonishingly high functioning.

I agree .. good professionals listen to parents and caregivers .. clearly you have dealt with "professionals" who think they know it all . better than the parents ansd care givers .. those "professionals" are wrong!!! And teacher aides are not the same as people trained to work in clasrooms with physically and intellectually disabled people .. two very different jobs ..

However because he is not a clear speaker most people assume he can't understand what they are saying. We have on occasion been asked to pick him up from school because he is crying and uncooperative only to find that teacher and teacher aide had been openly discussing #3's lack of performance, success and inability to keep up in front of him.

Exactly - these kinds of fuckwits (not professional at all) should not be allowed near neurotypical children, let unlone non-neurotypical ..

The bell curve being discussed should be those that meet the developmental norms only. Mainstreaming is an unpleasant cruelty for disabled children, parents, teachers and now with National Standards in place an unreasonable load for schools to carry.

I wish Bell Curves had never been invented - as far as I can see they are for the dingalongs to ring .. and have nothing to do with reality ..

Mainstreamin works for some of these people .. and does not work for others ... it's not a blanket answer to pull them into "special" schools ... it's a case by case basis as far as I can see ...

James Deuce

25th January 2013, 15:16

Banditbandit

25th January 2013, 15:25

I'm talking about Down Syndrome in particular, and the experience of all the people we have dealt with in that particular "community" is that mainstreaming does not provide a positive school or social experience. Until you've experienced it from our side your perception is always that of a teaching professional and it is incredibly difficult to get any person in the education sphere to listen to us.

Once Down Syndrome kids hit 7 or 8 their developmental delay begins to inhibit their socialisation with other children and a combination of ignorance and active bigotry from other parents mostly, causes a withdrawal of friendship and social interaction from other children. Every parent we've discussed this with characterises this as a time of extensive negative behaviour reinforcement and crushing disappointment.

The overwhelming opinion from parents involved in mainstreaming is that it was difficult for all parties involved and did nothing to help prepare children and parents for the realities of being an intellectually disabled adult. Your fist paragraph indicates to me that you are locked into a particular concept of education and while I don't mean that as an insult it is the primary reason why mainstreaming is essentially destructive and unhelpful in the long run for Down Syndrome people and their families. National Standards are simply the nail in the coffin. Your child is regarded as not only difficult to manage, he's a spaz and a failure to boot. That is the clear message from SES and the schools we've dealt with so far.

Yes - I do get all that, and no, I don't have direct experience with Downes Syndrome children in my classrooms ... and yes, I will wear the critique that from your point of view I'm just another member of the teaching profession ... I can understand why you have that attitude ... In your position I Probably would too ... I won't even try to counter that here ... it would take my actions to convince you otherwise .. not words in KB forums ... I would only say that my concept of education and teaching is that teachers create the environment in which children learn ... and I don't even control what my own students learn - apart from setting the broad parameters of the topics ... (and remember I teach in tertiary - so I don't have the spcialization etc issues that primary and secondary teachers deal with) ... as long as the learn something they pass ..

But see ... now you are being specific and I accept that Downes Syndrome children have their own special needs ... which is not the same as the generalizations you made in the previous post ... I have knowledge of Downes Syndrome in both mainstream (where they seemd to do well .. ) and special needs classes (where they also seemed to do well) ... again, I'd suggest that is is a case-bay-case basis and not generalizable .. though from what you are saying it seems that Downes Syndrome children generally do better in special needs classes .. not mainstream.

And National Standards are a crock of shit ... in the long run they will not be good for normal mainstream students either ...

Get your kids out of where they are - clearly they are not in a good space ... but don't be averse to mainstreaming them somewhere else ... (good luck in Greytown tho' - you have fuck all choices ...

yungatart

25th January 2013, 15:28

....

I agree .. good professionals listen to parents and caregivers .. clearly you have dealt with "professionals" who think they know it all . better than the parents ansd care givers .. those "professionals" are wrong!!! And teacher aides are not the same as people trained to work in clasrooms with physically and intellectually disabled people .. two very different jobs ..

To get those "professionals" to admit they are wrong would take a miracle.
And, I beg to differ about teacher aides. I don't know where or when you got your experience of teacher aides but at the school I work at all teacher aides are either qualified (or in training) to work in classrooms with students with disabilities, physical, intellectual, emotional and often all three at the same time. Not only that, they are all expected to do professional development every year relevant to the needs of the students they work with. Trained is exactly what we are.

Big Dave

25th January 2013, 17:11

Hitcher - Get off my lawn.

vifferman

25th January 2013, 17:40

...I should have learned a trade. Instead, I finished school, and with no idea what to do next, it was easy-ish for my scientist father to talk me into a BSc. It would have been better if I'd just bummed around, did a few random jobs, and grew up. Instead, I lost interest in a chemistry degree, switched to Earth Sciences, dropped out, got talked into coming back, started an MSc, dropped out, and came back. My wife got pissed off with supporting me, told me to pull my finger out and finish my thesis or get a job. So, I chucked it in, worked as a farm labourer for what was supposed to be 6 weeks, but turned into 18 months, followed by a year as a research technician.
When I discerned I was starting to turn into a moaning, unmotivated gubmint employee, I left and got a very lucrative job as a laboratory supervisor in the dairy industry. After 9 years of that (rising to Systems Manager), I got enthusiastic about IT, and I've had a series of IT-related jobs over the last 18 years, the last twelve as a tech writer. Yay.
Wish I was an electrician.
My three adult sons are all smarter and dumber than me. They're more intelligent, but one works in a butchery for just over minimum wage, one in a warehouse, and one is unemployed (and not on the dole). Their future looks rather grim, despite me trying my best to guide them in the right direction. I guess they inherited crap genes from me...