But that raises interesting questions too. I personally think that more emphasis should be placed on psychology in the earlier years of science, whereas most curriculums (at least where I am) tend to place a lot of emphasis on basic chemistry and biology. Whilst those areas are interesting, I personally find that psychology is a far more relevent and applicable science in a context where socialisation is the ultimate goal.

I also think that more emphasis on SOSE (Studies of Society and Environment, which is essentially history, sociology and geology mixed) could be better structured. These are the sorts of things (history and socilogy in particular) that could really help kids understand the world they are in.

But yes, I do agree that most of the others should remain as ellectives. Being that I dislike cooking, I found Home Ec a torturous subject, whereas my friend (who went on to go to cooking school) obviously enjoyed it a lot more. That said, I do think that makig the units compulsary for say a semseter in the junior years is a good way to 'force' students to have a go, I've found many people are suprised how much they enjoy certain subjects once they give them a chance.

I'm sorry but the title of this just made me crack up.
But i see your point kinda, to me there are two types of smarts, there is common sense smarts and education smarts
Kids are so stupid common sense wise it's not even funny, that why i hate little kids
But Education wise maybe America is stupid because are teachers suck, but i love some of my teachers, maybe it's not the teachers but the fact everykid is becoming spoiled and lazy. If you're lazy you aren't interested in learning new things, if you don'tlearn you're stupid, make sense?
Dang now you got me thinking

Well... that's fine, but I do believe that children should largely be given the opportunity to make their own decisions about what they wish to study and how deep they wish to delve into topics such as psychology. True that it would aid socialisation, but I still do not see it as being as fundamental as maths, english and science. It certainly furthers understanding but one can make do without it.

But yes, I do believe that all subject areas should be introduced to children at some stage or another, and to some degree or another. A child may hate cooking/sewing even when he/she tries it, but that is not to say that he/she won't have need of it one day.

Fair enough, but how is algebra useful past highschool to anyone except those that use algebra as part of their job description? It hardly deepends understanding, its use is rather dubious considering the nature of spreadsheet programs and calculaters these days (both of which represent real world methodologies).

The argument goes both ways, and I personally think that Chemistry is a lot less applicable in real life than Psychology (not to mention all the pseudopsychology that floats around that really should be cleared up, junk like the misperceptions of Bipolar disorder and etc). But perhaps I am just biased towards Psychology since I found it a useful subject back in highschool.

Well... I don't know about you, but I found algebra far more useful as a representative concept. Plus, I do still use it in everyday life, every now and again.

Psychology probably makes a lot less sense to a young student than even chemistry, though . In many ways you need an understanding of chemistry before you can fully appreciate psychology and cognitive science, anyway.

I think all you need to be clever is wanting to be clever.

quote Lylodile

Haha Paramore. Dajay is an emo girl

A student can only do so much to discipline a student; the rest is up to his or her parents. Did you know if a class is performing badly on their tests and whatnot, the teacher could be fired? That's because it shows to the higher-ups that the teacher isn't doing their job correctly, when most of the time it's due to lack of motivation and bad students. Everything that's taught in school will benefit you in some way or another, whether it's generally necessary or not, it sums up to thinking harder and thinking in different perspectives.

I think its naive to believe that all children are capable of the same level or kind of intelligence. Just because a child doesn't excell in a certain academic field doesn't mean they are stupid, but more often than not it is simply just that their natural talent lies elsewhere.

I agree that the way a child is brought up has a huge influence on how well they do at school, the home environment and early stages of development are key, but at the same time I also believe that natural intelligence is very important. In response to Dajay's statement that all you need to be clever is wanting to be clever, I think to an extent that can be true, but there has to be something genetic that separates the very best. The great legendary writers, philosophers and scientists must have had more than just a desire, but a natural gifting that made them geniuses in their respective fields.

Any student has the potential to be anything they want to be, all you need is drive and discipline, all of which can be obtained, though few people acctually have them.

Going to a selective school, I see many approaches to education many of my peers are tutored privately many nights a week whereas I am just naturally smart.