Something else I was thinking of: the American entry system, from what I've heard, takes a very holistic approach to judging an application (correct me if I'm wrong btw). They look at your SAT scores, achievements, essays etc. and they judge you. It is more subjective than what we have in Australia in that way, but would people like ilmm like that sort of system more? But then that subjectivity would create it's own element of criticism...I'm not saying that it's better or worse, just food for thought. Note that they still place a high emphasis on English due to the essays you must submit.
I appreciate that you're not saying "[whether] it's better or worse", but I would like to weigh in. In theory the "holistic" American approach seems to be fairer, as it looks at a greater set of criteria, and also seems to produce more well-rounded students, due to the emphasis on extra-curriculars and essays.
However, from reading a lot of American media, I have come away with the impression that this approach is subject to a profound, overarching socio-economic bias. There are hugely expensive companies such as
Ivywise that advise students on how to craft convincing essays, and to advise students on the right number of extra-curriculars to take, etc. Even if parents do not enlist the services of such a company (I'm imagining very few do use such a service), of course wealthier students have access to a broader range of extra-curricular activities and so forth. Whilst economic inequalities do similarly affect educational outcomes in systems like that of Australia, the unswerving focus on standardised testing means that admission basically comes down to prior academic preparation, which is more within an individual student's control.
Plus, if your school days are primarily focused upon preparing for SATs and amassing an impressive portfolio of school activities, one can imagine that actual learning falls by the wayside. Outside of the wealthier schools, or selective schools like Stuyvesant, I think the American high school student has a poorer preparation for tertiary study.
Haha, there's this school in England which has a self-esteem curriculum, including "happiness prefects", liable to punish students not displaying the requisite levels of happiness
...
God, I hate bright and shiny people. I'm not saying everyone should walk around in a depressed fog, but that kind of imposed happiness seems downright oppressive.
I have to agree with you on that. So much time is wasted at school. Currently, all of the studies I am taking require 17 contact hours per week at TAFE. Why this nearly doubles at high school baffles me to be honest. What you do in school is in my opinion, largely a waste of time. Learning should be primarily an individual thing, and I tend to learn the most on my own at home.
I wouldn't mind if the school day were increased in length, but I agree that the amount of time wasted at school is horrendous. Part of it is down to disruptive students, lazy/late/just-damned-ineffectual teachers, and so on, but also, I found I spent a lot of time having to rock up to sports events (etc.) that I wasn't even allowed to participate in. How does this make me a better-adjusted person? If anything, it made me even more warped, haha. By all means, do extra-curricular activities to enrich yourself, but don't make them compulsory.
And more importantly, the school day ideally would be shorted, and made more "dense." Hard to say without personal experience, but the Chinese system/philosophy kind of appeals to me.
Home
Help
Search
Login
