TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Education curriculum for elementary - high school should be more practical than theorical

I dont know who invented the education curriculum for the first time but what I feel is that students from elementary - high school learn something that's not really usefull for daily life, for example important subject ( for me ) is languange, simple math, and sport...

at school we learn something like Algebra, Integral, bla bla bla, it's really not practical in real life, you cant get job or part time job if you know these things,
why dont we learn something more practical at school like First Aid kid stuff, how to plant, cooking, how to fixing thing, how to recycle trash, how to clean stuff, how to get clean water, how to make light and fire bla bla bla...why this important stuff is only optional at school ? I think learn those stuff should be a main curriculum ...

can you imagine if students learn those skill at school, kid will know how to fix problem at home and at their environment, they will have more respect to nature

kid nowdays mostly only good at playing games, vandalism, fighting and porn
, how often do you see a kid can fix simple broken chair, or can cook simple food, or know how to manage trash ?

for what a kid age 12-18 knows about momentum, Integral, animal classification, bla bla bla ? it's only important for kids who want to further their study to become scientist, and as you know only less than 20% kid in your class become and want to be scientist

changing our education curriculum will dramatically changing our future generation behavior, dont you agree ?

(sorry for my bad english, I just learned it yesterday )

Topics: education

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 25 2012: I believe, that one major part of the issue of formal education is the mindset behind it. Currently, the value of what is being taught is judged on the "immediately apparent usefulness," or the surface level "what" of what you are learning. For example, proofs in geometry are not valued as important because, odds are, you'll never need to prove that two triangles are congruent ever again. When, I believe, the value of what is being taught should be judged on a deeper level, or the "how" of what is being taught. Example, proofs of triangle congruence are important because of the process of proving things, and knowing what it takes for things to be "known" as true.

    I hear this mentality (value based on the "what") articulated constantly when I tutor calculus. And I understand partly where it comes from. From MS through HS, I was also the subject to the "is this useful?" mentality. When teacher's tested me, they wanted back definitions, vocab words, theorem names....AS IF WHAT WAS IMPORTANT WAS THE NAME. It wasn't until HS senior year that I had a teacher explain to me, that "odds are, you'll never need to know these particulars ever again. So what I'm interested in is not that you know that or why Emerson used imagery to make his point, but the process of reading a text closely to pick apart arguments, to truly understand all that is said."

    So, I agree and disagree with you. Yes school should be more "practical." But not by teaching students how to set the time on the VCR, that information is on the internet. School should be practical in the sense that what is emphasized is the PROCESS, that are universal and useful to everyone, and not the PRODUCT ("what"), that you'll probably never see again.
    • Sep 25 2012: well that's true or false is really really usefull for programming since programmer use it everytime, but like what I said, all the advance math stuff is only usefull for further education, if you drop out high school or middle school, that kind of lesson is really useless

      when I was in UNiv, there are lots of ppl who dont know how to use VCR, dont know how to cook eventhough by cook they can saving money rather than eat outside everytime,

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.