Highschool drop out wannabes.

Putting all students into the same system and even the same school avoids this problem; everyone has the same opportunity and the bright/motivated/sociopathic ones will be able to take appropriate advantage of that opportunity.

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but thought it interesting:


  • Institutional tracking was closely related to the impact which socio-economic background had on student performance. The earlier students were stratified into separate institutions or programmes, the stronger was the impact which the school’s average socio-economic background had on performance. A long-term trend in OECD countries has been to reduce the amount of separation and tracking in secondary education. The most recent major example of this is Poland, whose reading results before and after this educationreform are reported in PISA. Here, an improvement in results among lower ability students immediately after the reform was not at the expense of higher ability students, whose results also rose in the subsequent period
  • (Table 5.19a).
  • Schools that divided students by ability for all subjects tended to have lower student performance, on average (Table 5.19a).


Source.
 
Point is this. In Denmark they've figured out that there is no shame associated with being a mechanic. There's no shame associated with being a plumber. In the US, to some extent, there is a stigma attached to being "just a mechanic."

I always cracked up over this. The doctor and lawyer would be begging and pleading for help with his undiagnosable (to the phd anyhow) automotive issue while at the same time thinking "dumb redneck mechanic"

Not that I havent met competent hobby and shadelaptop mechanics who were also phd's but the stigma that a field with an absolute lifetime of study required and a constantly changing patient anatomy was something to look down upon was always weird to me.
 
I'm saying I learned nothing in school. Almost everything I know is from reading on my own. I taught myself basic algebra in my early twenties.

I'm sure there is plenty substantial stuff I could have benefited from in a better school, and if I was less concerned with being assaulted or having my stuff stolen.

Aside from a couple of good teachers that really made you think, I'm in about the same boat.

To be fair I also found that college was the same way. A couple of teachers made you think but there was nothing to learn there for anyone who had even a modest desire to know the subjects "taught" there
 
Aside from a couple of good teachers that really made you think, I'm in about the same boat.

To be fair I also found that college was the same way. A couple of teachers made you think but there was nothing to learn there for anyone who had even a modest desire to know the subjects "taught" there

Sounds like someone complaining that they bought a gym membership and are still fat to me.

If you "had even a modest desire to know the subjects," how were you planning on getting that knowledge.

College -- and high school, for that matter -- provide the two critical resources without which it's very difficult to learn. Books, and experts to talk to about the books.

The whole purpose of the lectures is to get you to the point where you can understand the books. The whole purpose of the tests is to figure out how well you understand the books.

If you spent all your time at college not reading the books and not talking to the experts, then it was indeed a wasted effort. But that's hardly the school's fault.
 
It's fairer to the students. And by "fairer" I mean in the traditional "anyone can grow up to be President if he just pulls himself up by his bootstraps" American definition of "fair"; unlimited social mobility if you happen to be bright, ambitious, and totally sociopathic.

Almost every culture has its myths of the poor-but-bright student who can't afford to attend school but gets a job sweeping floors at night and reading the chalkboards after the "real" students leave and by the third reel is leaving all the rich kids in the dust. Most European school systems, perhaps especially in the UK, were very strongly class-based, where "his name has been down for this school since before he was born," because every Riddle of Riddleham has always gone to King's College, Riddleham. And, of course, KCR also had much better facilities than the local chapel school precisely because the Dukes of Riddleshire had been funding it for six hundred years, while the chapel had to make do with what they could.

Putting all students into the same system and even the same school avoids this problem; everyone has the same opportunity and the bright/motivated/sociopathic ones will be able to take appropriate advantage of that opportunity.
I can only speak for Holland here; but your concern about strong class distinctions are quite absent. There's also no tradition of alumni or parents significantly funding schools or universities, so they are dependent on the equal financing they get from the government. The only elitistic hold-over in the Dutch system are the separate gymnasium schools, and sure there are families who have a tradition of going there, but they were (already) a small minority when I went there - and I sure enjoyed attending a school with only 300 students. Most of the Dutch secondary schools offer 2 or all 3 tracks of secondary education.

And what happens if someone reads Cosmos their first year of VMBO and decides that they really want to become a cosmologist?
You may note there are several arrows in the diagram. There are several possible routes for your student. She can ask the principal to get promoted to second year of HAVO - rule of thumb is that an average grade of 7 is needed (6 = pass) - or even to second year of VWO with an average grade of 8. That's particularly easy when the school offers all three tracks. Such schools will often also make no or fewer distinction in classes between the different tracks in the first year.

The second possibility is that she graduates from VMBO (theoretical variant), and then goes to 4th year HAVO and graduates; then goes to 5th year VWO and graduates; and then studies astronomy at university. One of my friends from university followed this route.

The third possibility is that she follows 4 year VMBO; then 4 year MBO; then 4 year HBO; and then goes to university, where she gets fast-tracked, or that after 1 year HBO, she enters university to do a full study.

Finally, when your student only discovers Sagan after she's done VMBO and has already entered the job market, she can enlist in evening-VWO, and then do Open University or a part-time study at a university.

So, there are plenty of routes to "correct" a previous mistake.

Which is why American schools try to give everyone the knowledge they could need/want later, even if they just want to be janitors and mechanics.
Well, we could obviously discuss what body of knowledge that is, and whether the emphasis should be more on the "need" or "want" part. The Dutch system is obviously more suited for the "need" part.
 
It's fairer to the students. And by "fairer" I mean in the traditional "anyone can grow up to be President if he just pulls himself up by his bootstraps" American definition of "fair"; unlimited social mobility if you happen to be bright, ambitious, and totally sociopathic.

Almost every culture has its myths of the poor-but-bright student who can't afford to attend school but gets a job sweeping floors at night and reading the chalkboards after the "real" students leave and by the third reel is leaving all the rich kids in the dust. Most European school systems, perhaps especially in the UK, were very strongly class-based, where "his name has been down for this school since before he was born," because every Riddle of Riddleham has always gone to King's College, Riddleham. And, of course, KCR also had much better facilities than the local chapel school precisely because the Dukes of Riddleshire had been funding it for six hundred years, while the chapel had to make do with what they could.

Putting all students into the same system and even the same school avoids this problem; everyone has the same opportunity and the bright/motivated/sociopathic ones will be able to take appropriate advantage of that opportunity.



And what happens if someone reads Cosmos their first year of VMBO and decides that they really want to become a cosmologist? .

Or, maybe, a cosmetologist!!:)
 
Sounds like someone complaining that they bought a gym membership and are still fat to me.

If you "had even a modest desire to know the subjects," how were you planning on getting that knowledge.

What I meant was, that my modest desire to know the subjects had caused me to already be far ahead of the amount of knowledge tested for in the class. For my herpetology hobby though, getting so many cool guest speakers in class was totally worth it, but in electronics? Should have kept my pennies, they never got near where I was before I attended
 
Bill Gates was a drop out.

Hardly the posterchild for eschewing academia: Gates scored 1590 out of 1600 on the SAT, and got a full ride to Harvard.

He left Harvard in part because he had an agreement that he could return anytime within two years (he had done exceptionally well in his courses and was thought to already be performing at graduate level) and also because his parents agreed to financially support his return, should his business venture fail.

It was not because he didn't value education.

He attributes his success to the support he got from his math teachers at Lakeside, who fostered his interest in computers and arranged access to GE equipment.
 
Last edited:
Some other well-known dropouts :

Albert Einstein: Nobel Prize-winning physicist; "Time" magazine's "Man of the Century" (20th century) (after dropping out of high school, he studied on his own and passed the entrance exam on his second try to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology)

John D. Rockefeller Sr: Self-made billionaire American businessman-philanthropist; co-founder of "The Standard Oil Company;" history's first recorded billionaire (dropped out of high school two months before graduation; took business courses for ten weeks at Folsom Mercantile College [a chain business school])


Henry Ford: Self-made multimillionaire American businessman; assembly-line auto manufacturing pioneer; founder of the "Ford Motor Company"


Walt Disney: Oscar-winning American film/TV producer; animation and theme park pioneer; self-made multimillionaire founder and spokesperson of "The Walt Disney Studios/Company; "Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient; Congressional Gold Medal recipient; French Legion of Honor admittee/Medal recipient (received honorary high-school diploma from hometown high school at age 58)


Abraham Lincoln: 16th President of the United States; (little formal education - Lincoln himself estimated approximately one year; home schooling/life experience; later earned a law degree through self study of books that he borrowed from friends)


Dave Thomas: Self-made multimillionaire American businessman; founder-spokesperson of the "Wendy's" fast-food restaurant chain (equivalency diploma)

Andrew Carnegie: Self-made multimillionaire American businessman and philanthropist (elementary school dropout)

Samuel L. Clemens ("Mark Twain"): Best-selling American author and humorist (elementary school dropout)

It's quite surprising to see how many US Presidents are on this list:
:boggled:

http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm
 
Some other well-known dropouts :



It's quite surprising to see how many US Presidents are on this list:
:boggled:

http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm

Firstly, we should be mindful that what worked for a handful of geniuses in the 19th century may not be a recipe for success today.

Consider Einstein, for example: he didn't drop out because he was uninterested in academia. He was already a top student, probably the best the Gymnasium ever had. But he chose to leave because his father was transferred to another city and he didn't want to be socially isolated from his entire family. At that time, he was working with several of his teachers to produce his first paper, and was regarded as an academic overachiever. He continued to collaborate with them after moving away.

In other words: he left due to unusual family circumstances; he didn't leave because he didn't like school, or thought he was somehow above it.

Einstein was also a special case because he was a Jew and his academic career was frustrated by official policy at many institutions. The gaps in his academic career were mostly against his will, and it was the assistance of several ex-teachers from the Gymnasium that got him back on track.


And mother frack - a ten time loser like Christopher Columbus is on that list! Shoot, why not include Stalin, too? What a jingoistic pile of crap. If we're going back 500 years, there must be 9 billion dropouts, and they can come up with only 50 success stories? That's pretty bad odds.
 
Last edited:
One thing I find quite comical about that list is how many actors and actresses are on it.

Oh shock, oh surprise.
 
Last edited:
I always cracked up over this. The doctor and lawyer would be begging and pleading for help with his undiagnosable (to the phd anyhow) automotive issue while at the same time thinking "dumb redneck mechanic"

Not that I havent met competent hobby and shadelaptop mechanics who were also phd's but the stigma that a field with an absolute lifetime of study required and a constantly changing patient anatomy was something to look down upon was always weird to me.

Thank You!
 

Back
Top Bottom