Topic: Is there a culture where people are sorted by aptitude at age 9/10? (Read 181 times)

Intelligence definitely can't hurt that pursuit though.

I would blame the education issues on no one wanting to change and everyone blaming one another.

Teachers in particular don't have a clear way of being rated by administration, this is partly due to Unions fighting this sort of thing happening (because they think using test scores to rate teachers is unfair, which it is) and then administration wanting too much power to punish teachers with.

Politicians want instant action, so they push forward with large policy initiatives that sound great on paper but don't lead to anything.

Who knows the correct way to fix education, honestly it's not going to be easy.

How wealthy you become is more about who you know then how intelligent you are.  don't be fooled and think everyone can become rich with hard work.  The school system has always been meant to create more workers for the ownership class.

That's just one country in europe and I'm not sure how the system actually works in Germany.

Most European countries and America seem to have bad education systems (if not all) but I'm not sure there's much they can do to improve it unelss you get teachers that have a better knowledge of their subject and can better direct their students. I think everyone remembers the few teachers who gave up on what they were supposed to be teaching or followed it so loosly as to a point where they would also cover a bit behind what you were supposed to learn too...

---

How was Einstein at math was he still pretty average by age 10 - that might be an interesting thing to look at do you have a link?

So pretty much all of the reports that "European children are smarter then American children" is only due to the fact that they're sorting children by how smart they are at a certain age, and only letting the smartest people continue on further into academia while the rest are left for the trades and such?

Wow.

In germany after finishing the primary school you have to decide on what kind of school you will continue to go.

To visit the gymnasium and later study in university you need a good school record, a letter from your primary school which says you have the abilities to visit a gymnasium and depending on gymnasium also an entry exam.


Btw. at the end of primary school Einstein (based on his school records) was a rather average pupil who had problems with reading...

A brain reaches full maturity at around 18-21 years.

But then again -- making a subject more challenging may not even help.

I think that schools should be more well prepared to push kids into Vocational and trade schools, instead of forcing everyone down the same college path. Because there is a large amount of people in the world that were pushed down the path of college because it's 'right for everyone' when it isn't, and people have to be exposed to alternate means of providing for themselves.

Not everyone is suited for a desk job, and I think schools have forgotten that.

Most of the times I was in school I felt I was doing jothing. Maybe we should just make subjects a lot harder to ensure that everyone remains challenged but schools won't do that as they can't then assess students on it (schools won't get people higher qualifications if they don't need to)... Maybe something like this alongside the current school system might work so people get taught a fundamental knowledge but then have an ability to specialise in something in particular that they're good at... They ahould come up) with something that makes students better at doing lots of other skills rather than just being able to sit exams at the end of their time in education.

Not something that would be able to get through in the US in particular. Mostly because of the fact that the general opinion on the matter is that children should be able to learn with everyone, and not to be sorted among who's the smartest (and who's not) I don't really think it's really fair, to do that sort of thing to people.

Because it really depends on how you measure aptitude anyway, as you could unknowingly put 'dumb kids' with people who aren't actually smart.

Why would this be done anyway?

Not in my country definitely. I sure wished high-school was more different though, like maybe the first year was a variety of subjects for us to see which interests us the most and then the rest of the time there would be on a selected field. Instead till the very end they just stuffed random stuff. Like, I've never found a use for all that algebra. Same thing with having to learn calculus.

Even a destruction of the national corriculum would be a start so teachers have to work out what they're going to teach students rather than just teaching something they probably don't understand... For example, in chemistry gcse was simplified to a point where a teacher would have to forget what they learnt at university in order to teach it because a lot of it was too advanced and the exams are after something simplified to a point that it becomes utterly useless to know.

@coins, I get what you mean but I'm not talking about splitting people up completely by attutude, I merely think that more science driven students should be given an opportunity to focus on that and artsy students should focus more on that. There is certainly a good deal of crossover and maybe engaging students in projects is a much better way to do it (making those projects balanced so students know exactly what they're best at).

An aptitude gap does exist at this age but the problem is that it is inherently difficult, and resource intensive to measure.   Any attempt to measure aptitude at this age would likely fail and would simply measure "ability to comply", or "ability to take a test" which would both be prone to leaving out the brightest students.  The brightest students aren't going to be engaged in a 4th grade classroom.  They are going to be zoned out, bored, or mischievous. 

Its a much better idea to personalize education at this age and teach in a more modern way than to try to separate the kids and try to stay traditional within groups.  Dynamic projects where the more able students have more responsibilities but still have to work with the less able students is actually a great model for the real world. 

People's specialization shouldn't be determined for them.  This is something that sets your entire life on a certain track and kids aren't old enough to make that sort of commitment or understand what they like.  This is why everyone gets a general education until they are old enough to consent to a deeper specialization. 

We used to have the 11+ examination in England. Passing that could get you a reduced price higher education. That probably went when they killed the grammar schools.

I'm starting to think it becomes obvious who is going to be quite intelligent in certain fields by about the age of 8 of 9 and I'm wondering if anyone does this with education?

To me it seems obvious that everyone should be able to get referred from a teacher or take a test (potentially a compulsory one like sats in the UK) in order to determine their strengths and their weaknesses. Thinking back to high school (ages 10-16) for the entire time I didn't really do much, sure we got to learn about a lot of varied subjects but it wasn't particularly time specific - you could pick up a language at age 7 probably to similar ease as you could at age 11). Producing something like a research focused education (similar to what is done in universities) should be of a higher benefit to students giften in certain areas to take that forward. A lot of the time I talk to English, art, history etc students and they have to focus on getting advanced techniques rather than following their own style which I consider to be a waste of time as you're not teaching people to be creative and individual and look at other implications, you're telling them to become a cog. An example I have of this would be the use of punctuation which isn't very well defined in itself a lot of the time, learning things like their they're and there might be helpful but we'll probably do away with them in a few years and you'll be forced to infer by context (like when spoken).

Even though I mention tests it should ultimately be up to a pupil to decide what they want...