> Right. Interpretation, layered upon interpretation, layered upon assumptions.
> That's why people can't have conversations.
That's the only way to have conversations. It's impossible to know the other's mind, or to understand everything that is meant when something is said, you have have to make assumptions. When it seems those assumptions are wrong, you ask for clarification, as I did. That's how to actually have a conversation.
> My problem isn't at all with a class about XYZ. It's about being FORCED to take a class that has nothing whatsoever to do with the field of study.
So, should they not take English classes either, for fields that's not related to their fields of study? Do you think the state of the average high school graduate is sufficient in English to not need further development in that field? Do you think that's different in the U.S. compared to Europe? (you've mentioned you think it's lacking in philosophy, but I think that's a less interesting question compared to English).
> Your trade-school vs. university argument is empty. Universities in throughout Europe manage to graduate Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Software Engineers, Biologists and myriad other STEM professionals in three years...because they cut out the bullshit and provide quality education before university.
Says you, completely anecdotally, without much to back it up rather than your own singular experience and the experience one one or more children, or at least that's all you've expressed here.
Are U.S. graduates less competitive or more competitive than those of Europe? Are they exactly equally as competitive? You're making a lot of claims without much verifiable info to back it up, and I'm not inclined to do your research for you when you're the one making an initial assertion against the status quo. If you feel that strongly about it, which is seems like you do, then you probably have some information you can provide to support your position.
> We make them waste a whole year to make-up for what our secondary schooling failed to deliver. No employer in the STEM fields values this at all.
I'm going to call complete bullshit on this. I hire in a STEM field, I care that someone has graduated college compared to a trade school, or just having past experience, because to me it signals a higher likelihood of a base level of ability to communicate and coordinate with others that college often requires (this does not mean I only hire those people, but it is a signal I care about). I do not think I'm an outlier.
> A high school graduate should be useful to society right out of school. We graduate ignorant young adults who are barely good enough to stack boxes at a warehouse or make coffee.
They should be. Usually they are. I have a bunch of friends from High School that never went to college. They are productive members of society, and don't just stack boxes at a warehouse, regardless of what you may think of people that don't go to college in the U.S. Perhaps you need to spend more time with these people, so you aren't so quick to denigrate them.
> I was just in Singapore visiting a friend for couple of weeks. The level of education his 15 year old is receiving in state-run high school is nothing less than mind-blowing when compared to a 15 year old in the US.
There have long been comparisons to methods of education, often between the Japanese and the U.S., which I think would be similar (or at least illustrates some of the problems with assuming one approach is better). One I'm aware of that compares and contrasts many aspects of education between the systems notes that while Japanese High School graduates have the education of a U.S. student a couple years into college, there are other problems with their approach.:
An ongoing issue is student creativity, flexibility, or individual expression. Critical thinking is not a concept that has been highly valued in Japan. Japanese students are regimented and geared toward perseverance and self-discipline. A saying that sums up this one-for-all belief is “the nail that sticks out gets hammered.” Thus, students are generally instructed to memorize the text on which they will be tested, resulting in high test scores that do not test students’ ability to use the data.[1]
How sure are you what you're advocating for is actually
better, and doesn't just seem better on the few aspects you've been examining it on? What's a better for society, more uniformity in outcome and rote knowledge or more creativity? Are we selecting for one at the expense of the other when we change things? Do the changes actually benefit the system within which they would be afterwards? These are the things I think of when someone says we should make large changes to be more like a different society.
> In this country there's a severe failure to understand that our system of education is seriously broken.
I think there's a sever failure to understand our system of education at all, by both locals and foreigners. It seems to work in some respects, and fail in others. Before opting for a different set of trade-offs perhaps we should understand the ones we currently have. I don't have confidence you do, based on the conversation so far, so I'm hesitant to take your suggestions as something that would strictly be an improvement, and not just different in a way you assume would be better.
> We can stick our heads in the sand and pretend this isn't happening, or we can be honest in assessing how we have gone wrong and fix it.
The first step would be to actually look at the data and figure out what are the problems and what are the strengths. If you're unwilling or unable to see any strengths, perhaps you should look at the problem closer.
1: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ781668.pdf