NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5263812.stm

DO these sort of things annoy anyone else, because im getting beyond pi**ed off about older generations moaning about the current younger one(which im part of being 16 and about to get GCSE grades on Thursday)

It is unfair that a. The BBC can claim a whole year group is thick, and unfit for work, despite the fact that there are plenty of other leavers who will go on to do important high powered jobs in the future.
b. Is that all generations finish school apparantly unfit for work, The army has had to teach of thousands of people to read and write.
c. We have never had to learn to much crap while we are at school. In history we have to learn about empathising with victorian women, and the life of a falimy in the Great War, science is looking at how it is used, not how it happens etc.

Does anyone agree with the BBC? Or is is it just me...

It's not saying a whole year group is thick. It's saying that a significant number of people are thinck: "One in five employers said non-graduate recruits of all agesstruggled with literacy or numeracy".

See? Not just one year group.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5263812.stm

DO these sort of things annoy anyone else, because im getting beyond pi**ed off about older generations moaning about the current younger one(which im part of being 16 and about to get GCSE grades on Thursday)

It is unfair that a. The BBC can claim a whole year group is thick, and unfit for work, despite the fact that there are plenty of other leavers who will go on to do important high powered jobs in the future.
b. Is that all generations finish school apparantly unfit for work, The army has had to teach of thousands of people to read and write.
c. We have never had to learn to much crap while we are at school. In history we have to learn about empathising with victorian women, and the life of a falimy in the Great War, science is looking at how it is used, not how it happens etc.

Does anyone agree with the BBC? Or is is it just me...

While you make a good point that this has always been a problem and is nothing new, I agree with the BBC that it IS a problem.

On the other hand, the world needs ditch diggers too. :)

On the other hand, the world needs ditch diggers too. :)

Well done with the Caddyshack quote.

While you make a good point that this has always been a problem and is nothing new, I agree with the BBC that it IS a problem.

On the other hand, the world needs ditch diggers too. :)
Robots can dig ditches.

b. Is that all generations finish school apparantly unfit for work, The army has had to teach of thousands of people to read and write.

With punctuation and sentence structure such as those, it seems they will have one more person to teach.

Here's a tip: When bitching about other people's bitching about your literacy, do try to actually be literate.

Well done with the Caddyshack quote.

:D

Robots can dig ditches.

But then what are we gonna do with all the dumb people? :confused:

Give them literature!

The BBC do have a point though. If its that big a problem the government should firstly try and ensure the current generation are being schooled correctly and also encourage adult literacy groups. I think the problem is that in the generation about of about 35 onwards alot would have left before recieving qualifications due to the economic reasons during the 80's.

Robots can dig ditches.

Better build some robots that fix gas mains water mains and electrical/telecom lines hit by ditch diggers before you build ditch digging robots.

Sounds to me like the BBC has it right. If you can't be bothered to make an effort in school, then you don't deserve a job.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in the US people are dropping out more often. I don't feel much pity for them when their lazy ass can't find a job outside of the supermarket. We call that "getting your just deserts".

A school leaver is not a drop out. It's a person leaving school, as in being finished with it. That's how I understand the article.

But then what are we gonna do with all the dumb people? :confused:
Soylent Green.

A school leaver is not a drop out. It's a person leaving school, as in being finished with it. That's how I understand the article.

I read this:

One in five employers said non-graduate recruits of all ages struggled with literacy or numeracy, the Confederation of British Industry poll found.



And assumed that a leaver was a dropout.

I read this:

And assumed that a leaver was a dropout.

I don't think they have an abitur or a matriculation or "high school diploma" or whatever you call it in the US in the UK. We don't in Sweden. Here, "non-graduates" are people who don't have a university degree.

Soylent Green.

"I'm sorry Timmy, you failed your test. Get in the blender."

Fascinating. Most people in the US learn to read and write by the time they're 8 maximum. What's up with the UK?

Fascinating. Most people in the US learn to read and write by the time they're 8 maximum. What's up with the UK?

Heh. That's pretty funny. :p

Fascinating. Most people in the US learn to read and write by the time they're 8 maximum. What's up with the UK?


Teaching style. By all accounts European schools teach to the best students. American schools teach to the worst students. They also track much harder than we do.

My point that they abandoned their education before they could get more stands, I think.

You can always get more education - even people with university degrees can get more (they can go for Ph.Ds and other doctorates and professorships and the rest of that ad infinitum). Choosing not to pursue further optional education != dropping out.

Fascinating. Most people in the US learn to read and write by the time they're 8 maximum.

These fora do not support the veracity of that statement.

Rereading the article, it appears that "leavers" are students who leave after taking the GCSE, which is taken around 16. That means that while they technically don't have to go on, they either A. didn't make the effort to get the grades to go on on their tests or B. didn't choose to go on.

My point that they abandoned their education before they could get more stands, I think.


I'm not sure exactly what a GCSE is, but isn't it roughly the same as a highschool grad? If so I think it'd be more the slipshod standards of the British school system to blame than anything.

Teaching style. By all accounts European schools teach to the best students. American schools teach to the worst students. They also track much harder than we do.

Ah okie. I can see where that would make the difference.

You can always get more education - even people with university degrees can get more (they can go for Ph.Ds and other doctorates and professorships and the rest of that ad infinitum).

You can also (heaven forbid) read things you never studied in school. :eek:

"I'm sorry Timmy, you failed your test. Get in the blender."
We'll think of a better name than blender. Super Happy Spinny World maybe.

You can always get more education - even people with university degrees can get more (they can go for Ph.Ds and other doctorates and professorships and the rest of that ad infinitum). Choosing not to pursue further optional education != dropping out.

In this case it is. The education is free (which takes away the excuse for not doing it, the only barier is a single test, and most importantly, it clearly makes a difference in performance.

A PHD, while a good degree to have for a professor or researcher, isn't that valueble in the rest of the job market, because it's a research degree. A degree which makes the difference between working menial labor and working work outside of ditch-digging is very different.

I'm not sure exactly what a GCSE is, but isn't it roughly the same as a highschool grad? If so I think it'd be more the slipshod standards of the British school system to blame than anything.


GCSE is taken at 16. Technically it is the end of their High School, but there are two years of pre-university study remaining after it (AS, and A levels, what the Britts on the forum had a thread about last week, as results just came out). It isn't the equivalent of a High School Diploma, it's just the equivalent of finishing 10th grade.

In that regard (since you can't drop out and get a GED until 11th grade), it is identical to the normal dropout.

You can drop out in 10th grade. I believe the only requirement is that you be 16 in the US.

You can drop out in 10th grade. I believe the only requirement is that you be 16 in the US.

And most students aren't 16 until the start of 11th grade. The difference still stands.

In this case it is.

No, it isn't.

The education is free (which takes away the excuse for not doing it, the only barier is a single test, and most importantly, it clearly makes a difference in performance.

All education in Sweden is free, even university education. You'd seriously attempt to equate someone who "only" gets a masters and doesn't go for the Ph.D with someone who choses to abandon an unfinished primary education? A person who has finished gymnasiet with someone who hasn't?

A PHD, while a good degree to have for a professor or researcher, isn't that valueble in the rest of the job market, because it's a research degree. A degree which makes the difference between working menial labor and working work outside of ditch-digging is very different.

You've still not gotten support for your guess at what "school leaver" implies, so watching you draw conclusions from it makes me wonder if you'd fall under your own criteria.

We'll think of a better name than blender. Super Happy Spinny World maybe.

Maybe you can have a spiral slide drop theminto the blender. Kids love spiral slides. :)

All education in Sweden is free; even university education. You'd seriously attempt to equate someone who "only" gets a masters and doesn't go for the Ph.D with someone who chose to abandon an unfinished primary education? A person who has finished gymnasiet with someone who hasn't?

They teach logic at your schools? Because... Yeah... I adressed this in the same post. A PHD, while a prestigious degree doesn't make a difference in employment opportunity except to professors. I equate this to not reaching for all available options, which are so easy to reach (unlike in the US where money is a big deciding factor for many students when it comes to chosing schools, or even getting to do a 4 year degree, rather than a 2 year degree), when it comes to work opportunity.

You've still not gotten support for your guess at what "school leaver" implies, so watching you draw conclusions from it makes me wonder if you'd fall under your own criteria.

A bit of research seems to indicate that I'm wrong, but it isn't conclusive, so I'll have to wait for a Brit to come yell at me for jumping to conclusions.

You may cast aspersions on the level of my education to your heart's content. I assure you that I have the highest possible level available to me at this time.

In that regard (since you can't drop out and get a GED until 11th grade), it is identical to the normal dropout.

There are remarkably short-sighted, or unambitious, or people who just don't want an academic career, and they can leave from the age of 16, whether or not they've completed their GCSEs. They're called school leavers, in that they've left school and are on the job-market. Had they stayed on to do their GCSEs, and even if they'd done A-levels and were about to go on to oxbridge, they'd still be called school leavers. The phrase has got no connotations with the American 'drop-out', really :)

As for the article, I'm inclined to agree. I went to a posh school and a bog-standard uni, and when I first got there I was amazed at how under-equipped most other first year students from state schools were to handle the course. Remedial work had to be done on spelling, punctuation, grammar, expressing your arguments clearly on paper etc. Scary stuff. I had a massive advantage over most of my year in that I was one of the very few who had gone to a school that gave a good education, and I kept that advantage throughout my time as a student.

Oh, look at the poor drop outs, they can't get a job...I wonder why.

Those poor dropouts can't get a job? That's a good thing, because it ensures there is a steady supply of cheap and disposable labor whenever I need some menial task done and don't want to do it myself. Even better, I can pay them next to nothing for it because there are so many of them...

There are remarkably short-sighted, or unambitious, or people who just don't want an academic career, and they can leave from the age of 16, whether or not they've completed their GCSEs. They're called school leavers, in that they've left school and are on the job-market. Had they stayed on to do their GCSEs, and even if they'd done A-levels and were about to go on to oxbridge, they'd still be called school leavers. The phrase has got no connotations with the American 'drop-out', really :)


Damn. There we go.

Am I right, however, that this article is referencing more those who didn't stay on for the full run than those who left just after 16? Or is it referencing the whole subset?

Because it's pretty damning of a system if it has that many issues within the whole subsection of students leaving school.

Maybe you can have a spiral slide drop theminto the blender. Kids love spiral slides. :)
Nice thinking.

If you have a PhD in a field like economics, engineering, math, finance or computer science and you combine it with work experience accumulated during your graduate studies you're going to make a lot more money and are going always have a better chance of getting a new job or a promotion that pays significantly more than the one you had.

You're going to make a lot more money over your working life compared to others with just a master's or a bachelor's degree; it's expensive to get a PhD, but if you can afford it and can handle the work you should definitely do it.

Source? Because I've known PHD-holders who have said otherwise.

They teach logic at your schools?

Yes, they do, hence the logical absurdity one has to draw from a statement such as "the education is free (which takes away the excuse for not doing it)."

Because... Yeah... I adressed this in the same post. A PHD, while a prestigious degree doesn't make a difference in employment opportunity except to professors.

Which is irrelevant as you were trying to equate them with drop-outs for not pursuing an optional schooling after having finished the level preceding it.

I equate this to not reaching for all available options, which are so easy to reach (unlike in the US where money is a big deciding factor for many students when it comes to chosing schools, or even getting to do a 4 year degree, rather than a 2 year degree), when it comes to work opportunity.

Which is it gonna be - you're not equating or you are equating? Make up your mind. The simple fact is that you can't equate a drop-out and someone who has finished a level of schooling and has chosen not to pursue a higher one, no matter the "ease" or "availability" of such.

A bit of research seems to indicate that I'm wrong, but it isn't conclusive, so I'll have to wait for a Brit to come yell at me for jumping to conclusions.

One should think you would wait for clarification before making your tortuous leaps...

You may cast aspersions on the level of my education to your heart's content. I assure you that I have the highest possible level available to me at this time.

Oh, I need not cast any aspersions.

Damn. There we go.

Am I right, however, that this article is referencing more those who didn't stay on for the full run than those who left just after 16? Or is it referencing the whole subset?

Because it's pretty damning of a system if it has that many issues within the whole subsection of students leaving school.
It is referring to non-graduates - which is basically anyone who hasn't completed a university degree. So you would be right on that point.

As someone who hires people for technical roles I can say that the quality of school leavers is as to be expected given the fucked up state of our education system.

It is not the fault of the students. The ones who want to get on do so but are limited by resource issues along with the fact that discipline is nearly non existant in the classrooms of many schools.

The parents are mainly to blame but the government and teachers are not entirely blameless either.

When I interview school leavers for entry level support roles the one thing I notice is a willingness to work. I don't think that shirking is an issue. However I could never ask a school leaver to write a well structured report.

When I left school in '84 I left with 2 'O' levels. I did go to Uni for two years about 10 years after I left school. I am just not interested in academia. Of course I know its importance and the contribution a well educated and, more importantly, intelligent population makes to society.

I now manage support teams ranging between 8 and 20 people for major multi national companies. You can succeed without having a degree, there are enough examples of people who have. However it does not mean that having a degree is 'bad'. (I say that but there are some degrees that are pointless...Golf Studies? Happiness? Meat Management? please!)

Education has become devalued in our country and the worst part is that we of my generation know this and feel powerless to do anything about it as the politicians really do not care for long term solutions.

I will say though that there is one degree course that needs to be obliterated - the MBA.

That 'degree' has wrecked untold damage on companies and governments. Mainly because most who gain the degree are young and have no understanding of the world nor business.

Outsourcing - that is a MBA talking.

Source? Because I've known PHD-holders who have said otherwise.

US Dept. of Commerce 2002 Report "The Big Payoff" (http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23%2D210.pdf)

It is referring to non-graduates - which is basically anyone who hasn't completed a university degree. So you would be right on that point.

That is presuming a "full run" = "up to the level of university degree." For many people and professions such is not the case.

Damn. There we go.

Am I right, however, that this article is referencing more those who didn't stay on for the full run than those who left just after 16? Or is it referencing the whole subset?

Because it's pretty damning of a system if it has that many issues within the whole subsection of students leaving school.

By refering to school leavers 'of all ages', it means those who left as soon as they could (tiny, tiny minority), those who stayed for GCSEs (nearly all), and those who took A-levels (most). They're _all_ junk - or more accurately, they all contain junk.

The big deal in education at the moment is that GCSEs and A-levels no longer seperate the smart students from the thick, let alone the average, and that's the position the article takes - that results are increasingly meaningless, and businesses that rely on them as indicators of competence have bought a pig in a poke...

Smart, talented, hard working pupils still exist, of course, it's just that you no longer need to be smart, talented, or hard-working to get your GCSEs and A-levels, so relying on them to hire new employees is a real gamble.

I will say though that there is one degree course that needs to be obliterated - the MBA.

That 'degree' has wrecked untold damage on companies and governments. Mainly because most who gain the degree are young and have no understanding of the world nor business.

Well, it depends. A lot of the MBAs over the past few decades were attained by managers and other businessmen who wanted to increase their earnings power and their opportunities for promotion; it was a real degree with real coursework. It's only in the past 15-20 years that MBAs have become little more than pieces of paper with no meaning other than to increase your salary.

Outsourcing - that is a MBA talking.

That's good business sense talking. If someone in India can do the same job for 80% less, what sense does it make to pay more for the same returns?

Or, if someone in Texas can do the job for 50-80% less, why hire someone in California to do the same job?

A PHD, while a good degree to have for a professor or researcher, isn't that valueble in the rest of the job market, because it's a research degree.
These days, "researcher" represents a very nice slice of the job market. You can go academic, you can go government, you can go industry, and you can even go corporate. Research degrees also open up the glorious world of consulting, particularly for those who are in the biomedical sciences and don't have a problem getting paid by pharm companies.

Yes, they do, hence the logical absurdity one has to draw from a statement such as "the education is free (which takes away the excuse for not doing it)."

How is it illogical. If education is free and available just to those willing to make an effort, there is no excuse for not doing it and then whining because employers beleive you aren't up to standard.

Which is irrelevant as you were trying to equate them with drop-outs for not pursuing an optional schooling after having finished the level preceding it.

I was equating the effort they were willing to make with that of US citizens who do the same.

Which is it gonna be - you're not equating or you are equating? Make up your mind. The simple fact is that you can't equate a drop-out and someone who has finished a level of schooling and has chosen not to pursue a higher one, no matter the "ease" or "availability" of such.

But I can say that just like drop-outs whining about not getting respect from employers because they weren't willing to finish their education past the required level in the US is absurd, the same is true in "School leavers"

One should think you would wait for clarification before making your tortuous leaps...

I drew what I could out of the article. It turns out that I was mostly correct, given the context. We call that "Critical Reading".


Oh, I need not cast any aspersions.

Um... Too late? :p

US Dept. of Commerce 2002 Report "The Big Payoff" (http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23%2D210.pdf)

Meh. I stand corrected.

Meh. I stand corrected.

However, you are correct a PhD is no guarantee that you'll get or keep a job:

In 1986, after oil prices collapsed, the number one employer for PhDs in petroleum geology and engineering was the grocery chain Safeway. They went from earning five or six figures to earning $3.35 an hour.

It's probably more advantageous to get a bachelor's or masters degree in two majors rather than focusing on a PhD in one.

Well, it depends. A lot of the MBAs over the past few decades were attained by managers and other businessmen who wanted to increase their earnings power and their opportunities for promotion; it was a real degree with real coursework. It's only in the past 15-20 years that MBAs have become little more than pieces of paper with no meaning other than to increase your salary.



That's good business sense talking. If someone in India can do the same job for 80% less, what sense does it make to pay more for the same returns?

Or, if someone in Texas can do the job for 50-80% less, why hire someone in California to do the same job?

Thats why I qualified my statement by saying that the young who have no real experiance are bad news when hooked up with an MBA. And that is why they have become little more than pieces of paper with no meaning other than to increase your salary.

Outsourcing is good biz sense in the short term to reduce costs....that is the only reason. In the long term you loose much more than just customers...you also loose your technical skills and that is not good for anyone.

However, you are correct a PhD is no guarantee that you'll get or keep a job.

Depends on the field and the job. If all you want to have is "a job," a PhD may not be worth your time. However, if there are particular jobs you want to have, you may have to get a PhD to even have a chance at getting or keeping one of them.


It's probably more advantageous to get a bachelor's or masters degree in two majors rather than focusing on a PhD in one.
Again, depends on the type of job/career you want to have. A whole lot of career paths require a PhD just to get on board, or will require a PhD if you want to advance beyond a certain point. In many fields, getting a masters is pretty much a waste of your time.

For instance, in my field (biomed neuroscience and pharm research) the only people who really go for the masters are people who plan to go into industry and be a lab tech for the rest of their life. People who want to run a lab, do their own research, or build a serious research career typically don't waste time on master's degrees, because the PhD includes all the masters-level stuff anyhow.

How is it illogical. If education is free and available just to those willing to make an effort, there is no excuse for not doing it and then whining because employers beleive you aren't up to standard.

It is illogical because you tried to use the argument for equating them with drop-outs. An equation that is simply flawed.

I was equating the effort they were willing to make with that of US citizens who do the same.

So, basically you were using the fundamentally different US school system to try to say something about the people in the UK school system? And you question me on logic...

But I can say that just like drop-outs whining about not getting respect from employers because they weren't willing to finish their education past the required level in the US is absurd, the same is true in "School leavers"

The OP (mind you, a person "about to get GCSE grades") is bitching. The people in the article bitching are the employers. And, as we shall soon see, those "school leavers" seem to actually be people with GSCEs and the A levels and whatnots...

I drew what I could out of the article. It turns out that I was mostly correct, given the context. We call that "Critical Reading".

... actually, it seems you were mostly wrong. (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11577549&postcount=43) We call that "running your mouth about things of which you know very little, or nothing."

Um... Too late? :p

Yes, as you had already cast such aspersions on yourself.

Thats why I qualified my statement by saying that the young who have no real experiance are bad news when hooked up with an MBA. And that is why they have become little more than pieces of paper with no meaning other than to increase your salary.

It's not a good trend, definitely. Most of the MBAs today don't have the business experience to use the things they learn; you've got 21 year olds who've never held a full-time job getting MBAs and learning advanced management techniques. The problem is clear.

Outsourcing is good biz sense in the short term to reduce costs....that is the only reason. In the long term you loose much more than just customers...you also loose your technical skills and that is not good for anyone.

That's one of the reasons why outsourcing is slowing down. Salaries are rising and companies in India are hiring more and more of the graduates; the turnover rate is something like 80% and salaries are rising by up to 100% per year in some fields.

The quality of the workers is simply no longer economical; now that India and China are catching up with OECD wages, they now have to compete on a level field with OECD workers.

It is illogical because you tried to use the argument for equating them with drop-outs. An equation that is simply flawed.

Not really. The way I'm equating them is perfectly logical. Both are groups who had no excuse other than their own laziness for not getting a better degree. Therefore neither group has cause to complain about their economic status, or the respect they get from employers.

Yes, as you had already cast such aspersions on yourself before me.

Nope. You did it first. See, those of us who have an education know that casting an aspersion means "a: a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation b : the act of making such a charge" (Webster)

Since I made no actual charge against myself, I can't have done so.

Good Game. :p

Depends on the field and the job. If all you want to have is "a job," a PhD may not be worth your time. However, if there are particular jobs you want to have, you may have to get a PhD to even have a chance at getting or keeping one of them.

That's true. I'm going in to finance and might double-major or minor in economics to better increase my chances of getting a job and widening my job opportunities; the business field probably places a lot more emphasis on a wider skillset rather than a deeper, but narrow, skillset compared to other fields.


Again, depends on the type of job/career you want to have. A whole lot of career paths require a PhD just to get on board, or will require a PhD if you want to advance beyond a certain point. In many fields, getting a masters is pretty much a waste of your time.

For instance, in my field (biomed neuroscience and pharm research) the only people who really go for the masters are people who plan to go into industry and be a lab tech for the rest of their life. People who want to run a lab, do their own research, or build a serious research career typically don't waste time on master's degrees, because the PhD includes all the masters-level stuff anyhow.

That's also true. I think it really depends on what you want to do with your field of interest.

Not really. The way I'm equating them is perfectly logical.

After you've had opportunity to renegue on what you wrote and attempt to reassemble your dishevelled argument...

Both are groups who had no excuse other than their own laziness for not getting a better degree. Therefore neither group has cause to complain about their economic status, or the respect they get from employers.

... which, we see, still goes on to ignore the fact that "school leavers" included people who have GSCEs and A-levels and the OP being someone who is getting the GSCEs. Additional pesky details that blow even more holes in the fragile fabric of your ignorant equation.

Nope. You did it first. See, those of us who have an education know that casting an aspersion means "a: a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation b : the act of making such a charge" (Webster)

Since I made no actual charge against myself, I can't have done so.

There are these things we call "literary devices." You, personally, did not cast the aspersions, if you want to go into the semantics and analyse the grammar of sentences. What you wrote, though, and how quick you were to jump to conclusions based on nothing more than your own flawed construction of something you didn't know that much about at all, did cast aspersions. "Ces gestes qui vous trahissent..."

Good Game. :p

One you lost by being consistently wrong. You editing out where you were proved wrong doesn't make that go away.

While you make a good point that this has always been a problem and is nothing new, I agree with the BBC that it IS a problem.

On the other hand, the world needs ditch diggers too. :)

And prostitutes. I agree with you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5263812.stm

DO these sort of things annoy anyone else, because im getting beyond pi**ed off about older generations moaning about the current younger one(which im part of being 16 and about to get GCSE grades on Thursday)

It is unfair that a. The BBC can claim a whole year group is thick, and unfit for work, despite the fact that there are plenty of other leavers who will go on to do important high powered jobs in the future.

Agreed.


b. Is that all generations finish school apparantly unfit for work, The army has had to teach of thousands of people to read and write.

I don't know about how things are in the UK, but I am horrified at what's going on in the US. Kids are being given high school diplomas when they aren't even able to read or write, or do basic sums. That's pathetic; a diploma should mean something.


c. We have never had to learn to much crap while we are at school. In history we have to learn about empathising with victorian women, and the life of a falimy in the Great War, science is looking at how it is used, not how it happens etc.

I believe that early levels of education should be more "liberal arts" focused, to give young people a wider bredth of experience.

Hell, even at the graduate level I have taken courses that don't apply specifically to my field. Why? Because then I can better converse with my peers, of course! I may not ever use proteomics in my research, but I have collegues who do. Having an introduction to their subject area makes it possible for me to talk to them about their angle on research. Very valuable.

And personally, I think it would be great if more young people were taught to empathize with Victorian women. Education is a great tool for increasing empathy, and empathy is a key to social consciousness. Let young men and women of the modern day really empathize with those who have been disenfranchized. Give them a real appreciation for the power and freedom they enjoy, and also help them be watchful and protective over their rights and freedoms. Never too young for that sort of thing.

I believe that early levels of education should be more "liberal arts" focused, to give young people a wider bredth of experience.

I've met a lot of engineers who can do almost any math, but can't write a paragraph. One here in the office didn't know where India was on a map.

Lots of liberal arts types I've met who can't do any math beyond simple algebra. I believe it's essential to understand more than that.

Yes, schooling is inadequate - often in gross ways. Someday, someone will get it right. Until then, you have to educate yourself - not everyone is educable, and not everyone gives a damn.

I don't understand this British gibberish with thick years and thin years. :confused:

Soylent Green.
I have a list..