Should women go to college?

[Christine]

When you say seldom go past algebra what do you mean? I understand you do some algebra but you must do statistics, mechanics, geometry and applied math as well. Its to what level you push these areas of math that is important...you have to do them to some degree.
I mean that algebra is as high as many American high schoolers go in college prep math. Instead of taking geometry and calculus, they'll take what we call "business math" and/or "consumer math." Statistics, you must be joking, here in the states you don't get that until the college level. Geometry, if taken is taken in high school. As for mechanics, we don't have a course with that name, perhaps we call it something different?

[Apologist]

Hi everyone,

This question is for Lucky, but other Christians are welcome to post as well.

I've often wondered about my role as a woman in society. I know the scripture says women are helpmates and I have also learned in other books and from my own experienes that women are responders while men are the ones who initiate.


If i may add my own two sense. Anything that you do outside of the religious life is essentially gonna be soley for the sake of supporting a family. That's really the only reason to be non clergy. Ultimately, non clergy Christian life revolves the family. What you have to ask yourself is this: Are you going to college for the sake of a family...namely husband/wife/children...or purely for the sake of career? Frankly, a non clergy career is only as good as the end you wish to achieve. If that end is supporting a family, so be it. Just make sure that you raise your children. If the job interferes with that, then that's where we have a problem.

[No Worries]

No Worries, this is a list of a college-prep high school class preference in the US. This is what the colleges have told the high schools to offer as college-prep.

From http://www.collegeboard.com/article/0,,2-7-0-33,00.html

4 years of English (including literature, writing/composition, and speech)
4 years of math ( including algebra 1, geometry, algebra 2, and trigonometry or calculus {Most schools here combine algebra 2 and trig})
3 years of science (1 year of earth science or chemistry, 1 year of biology, and 1 year of physics)
2 years of a foreign language (most schools offer French and Spanish; some offer German as well)
3 years of social studies (including geography, US history, world history, and government/economics; most schools require four years)

When I was in high school, they also required 4 years of physical education or team sports, 1 year year of music or art, and typing/keyboarding. All of the college-prep courses were labelled either "college-prep" or "advanced."

Yeah the entry system looks completely different to what I'm used to. It still looks very broad based. When I applied to university it was a case that you did 2 years before entry studying specific courses which were geared directly at that course. For example if you wanted to study medicine then after finishing high school you studied specifically biology, chemistry, maths or physics, and two other subjects. So humanities and languages could be dropped competely at this stage though I understand English was considered a goodone to take. Qualifications from the 16 y.o. level were taken into account as well which are broad based as is your system above and included all types of subject.

Reassuirngly the link you provided highlights the need for structure in work/essay. It doesn't elaborate too much on the structure but you can see that the same teaching is evident. I still find it strange that you might be wanting to read biology at university but it could have been a few years since you last did it.

The system obviously works, I just find it alien and must admit on first impressions its not one I prefer.

[No Worries]

I mean that algebra is as high as many American high schoolers go in college prep math. Instead of taking geometry and calculus, they'll take what we call "business math" and/or "consumer math." Statistics, you must be joking, here in the states you don't get that until the college level. Geometry, if taken is taken in high school. As for mechanics, we don't have a course with that name, perhaps we call it something different?

Again I just find this strange because much of what you learn in statistical math occurs again and again in Chemistry, Biology and Physics. Mechanics is a form of applied math and if you can do mechanics it helps you in your physics and vice versa. This is why I find it strange to do biology for one year and then not go near it for a while.

We learn about biology as we are learning about math. As our math improves over the years so does the scope to improve our understanding biology. I don't know how certain aspects of biology/chemistry are taught without understanding certain mathematical apsects i.e. Normal distribution. Certainly there are simple connections between the ability to balance an equation in math and balancing a chemical reaction: the comparisons become more and more as learning increases.

[No Worries]

If i may add my own two sense. Anything that you do outside of the religious life is essentially gonna be soley for the sake of supporting a family. That's really the only reason to be non clergy. Ultimately, non clergy Christian life revolves the family. What you have to ask yourself is this: Are you going to college for the sake of a family...namely husband/wife/children...or purely for the sake of career? Frankly, a non clergy career is only as good as the end you wish to achieve. If that end is supporting a family, so be it. Just make sure that you raise your children. If the job interferes with that, then that's where we have a problem.

How about doing something like for the good of the community or mankind as a whole.
Marie Curie was not clergy and her work would have taken her from her family. Are you saying that she led a bad life, she's saved thousands of lives through her work. Become a doctor or a nurse and you may neglect your family, you may not even have a family, but you will be doing good work outside the church. Be a biologist and find the cure for cancer. Be a teacher, a policewoman. Become a genuine politician and make a difference, work for Amnesty International or a Children's charity. Work for a lobbyist group and improve the world. Be an environmental engineer and help save the world for others.

Painting a picture or writing a book can improve lives. A career outside the clergy is not just to support your family. That is a very selfish attitude.

[No Worries]

If I may totally digress: if I were King I would abolish schools and institute apprenticeships. Then I would abolish all lending practices - that is, no loans, no credit. You earn what you need and you pay for what you need free and clear. Anything else is a scam. I just recently read about John Holt turning down an honorary degree... if he wasn't my hero before! My life goal is now to have a university call me up to award me an honorary degree so that I can go to the ceremony and refuse it. I could then die.

I disagree in that I think universities are valuable places. If I get run over I would hope that the doctors that operate on me would have done a little studying before they slice into my abdomen, I don't want to be anyone's guinea pig.

That said I completely agree that the role of universities has become over exaggerated. Much better to tell a kid that he is not an academic but that doesn't mean he can't get a good job. How many people get degrees and still end up flipping burgers for a while. Apprenticeships should be made to be an equal alternative to further study. Some people aren't meant to have their noses in a book.

[firechyld]

I'll take that as a "no" you had no idea that in the U.S. we learn science courses one at a time, seldom learn more than one foreign language, seldom take math past algebra, etc.

I knew that.

I think it's a really bad idea, but I haven't got anything empirical to back that up with.

[firechyld]

Again I just find this strange because much of what you learn in statistical math occurs again and again in Chemistry, Biology and Physics. Mechanics is a form of applied math and if you can do mechanics it helps you in your physics and vice versa. This is why I find it strange to do biology for one year and then not go near it for a while.

We learn about biology as we are learning about math. As our math improves over the years so does the scope to improve our understanding biology. I don't know how certain aspects of biology/chemistry are taught without understanding certain mathematical apsects i.e. Normal distribution. Certainly there are simple connections between the ability to balance an equation in math and balancing a chemical reaction: the comparisons become more and more as learning increases.

The Aussie high school system, and I think the English as well, covers math up to a level that the American system doesn't broach until the college level. A few American students who attend my uni for science courses had to do bridging courses... I gather this is fairly common.

[dataanapar]

I'm a woman and I go to col... Oh, wait no I'm not.
Nevermind

I beleive it's fine for women to go to college.

[No Worries]

The Aussie high school system, and I think the English as well, covers math up to a level that the American system doesn't broach until the college level. A few American students who attend my uni for science courses had to do bridging courses... I gather this is fairly common.

I'd go along with that. I attended high school in Perth, Australia and went to an English university. I studied A levels in England (prep college courses) and there wasn't much difference between the Australian level and that of the English. Though A-levels are a pretty steep learning curve for all.

[anna]

A lot of those guys aren't especially talented mathematicians, either. This is why by the third year science classes have become very small - and the ratio of men and women gets closer to one. Some guys probably hang on longer because of testosterone and ego. Being honest about where your calling lay is likely the smartest way to go. As an aside, I didn't think comp. sci. required a load of math; maybe I'm thinking of an associates degree.

If I may totally digress: if I were King I would abolish schools and institute apprenticeships. Then I would abolish all lending practices - that is, no loans, no credit. You earn what you need and you pay for what you need free and clear. Anything else is a scam. I just recently read about John Holt turning down an honorary degree... if he wasn't my hero before! My life goal is now to have a university call me up to award me an honorary degree so that I can go to the ceremony and refuse it. I could then die.

Most of the computer science curriculums I looked at in diferent universities have alot of math. In my current university, you can get a math minor if you go the scientific route; all you would need is a couple of classes.

You're right about that. Most of the students who go to my university are severly lacking in basic skills and the ones with the biggest egos are taking the classes I take over and over. I remember this one guy who laughed at me for carrying a C++ for dummies book but at the end of the semester couldn't answer a simple question that the proff asked him. The proff had a field day on him; I almost felt sorry for him.

Education in the state of Louisiana is pathetic. I got a B in precalculus (a course that shouldn't exist) and still didn't have a clue as to what I was doing and in Calculus had only 2 weeks to understand limits (when it took the proff a month to learn it). One of my classmates was having trouble with a certain class that required a certain kind of math, but the university didn't require her to take that math as a prerequisite. You waste time figuring out that you needed a certain class or a certain teacher just so you at least do well enough to move on in the curriculum. I think it is a diliberate way to get more money out students who are already strapped down with student loans and families to take care of.

[No Worries]

Most of the computer science curriculums I looked at in diferent universities have alot of math. In my current university, you can get a math minor if you go the scientific route; all you would need is a couple of classes.

You're right about that. Most of the students who go to my university are severly lacking in basic skills and the ones with the biggest egos are taking the classes I take over and over. I remember this one guy who laughed at me for carrying a C++ for dummies book but at the end of the semester couldn't answer a simple question that the proff asked him. The proff had a field day on him; I almost felt sorry for him.

Education in the state of Louisiana is pathetic. I got a B in precalculus (a course that shouldn't exist) and still didn't have a clue as to what I was doing and in Calculus had only 2 weeks to understand limits (when it took the proff a month to learn it). One of my classmates was having trouble with a certain class that required a certain kind of math, but the university didn't require her to take that math as a prerequisite. You waste time figuring out that you needed a certain class or a certain teacher just so you at least do well enough to move on in the curriculum. I think it is a diliberate way to get more money out students who are already strapped down with student loans and families to take care of.

Anna I'm not having a go at you...its obviously not your fault, but just to make a comparison we were taught calculus limits (I presume you mean when integrating) when I was 14 or 15. Obviously nothing too taxing initially but it was something that was then built on every year thereafter. I don't understand why the math standard is so low when it is so useful in other fields of study; economics, biology, physics, chemistry, business studies.

[anna]

Anna I'm not having a go at you...its obviously not your fault, but just to make a comparison we were taught calculus limits (I presume you mean when integrating) when I was 14 or 15. Obviously nothing too taxing initially but it was something that was then built on every year thereafter. I don't understand why the math standard is so low when it is so useful in other fields of study; economics, biology, physics, chemistry, business studies.

I am not sure about the Calculus. I had never had Calculus before so I wouldn't be suprised if the limits we were dealing with had to do with integration. There is obviously no real preparation at this university (I dropped out reciently). I did have one really good teacher who helped me tremendously, but I am not really impressed with this school as a whole.

I never took anything you've said personally. I am fully aware of my own lack of education and that is why I agree with alot of what you have said. As a student, I have often tried to see the connection between the different areas of study, but I found it difficult and frustrating because there was no gradual built up but rather mindless repetition. The curiculum just plain sucks here.

It's hard to know what I want because I am uneducated. All I have to do is read history and find out how much smarter and decent men like George Washington were(I read his farewell address..and it saddend me ). How do I know what I want when I don't know what I am really good at or what my real limitations are? Is it me or is it a lack of good teachers? I don't know. I know that learning is a two-way street and that most of the responsibility for learning is the students which is why I tend to be very hard on myself because I actually want to learn.

I think the math is so substandard in the state of Louisiana because we have got so many crooked politicans here(just look at the whole Katrina mess :kookoo: ) and teachers on the payroll who don't have the skills to be teaching. I remember one of my teachers couldn't even write me a decent recommendation letter. My dad (the engineer) went to Georgia Tech but couldn't hack it there eventhough he did really well as a student in highschool; He was born and raised in Louisiana too. Louisiana is the pits. :(

[No Worries]

Anna,

Speaking from my own experiences when choosing a course to study at university I would always go with what you are passionate about rather than what you think is a sensible, practical choice. If you enjoy the subject then the battle is already half won. Many of my friends dropped out too because they had chosen the wrong course. Fact is even if you realise later on that the degree you are studying for is not the direction you want to go in then the degree in itself will still open doors. Approach a university with a degree already under your belt and the chances are you'll get accepted even if it isn't a relevant degree. It shows you have commitment and an ability to study. At A-level I sat history, economics, maths and a general studies course. I fancied going into business but I enjoyed the history too much and found it much easier than the subjects. I could do well in it without as much effort. I studied History at university because it was a degree and I wanted to enjoy the student life as well without being under too much pressure. As it turned out I ended up actually going down the business track as a career after university but I don't regret for a second the choice to do the easier fun option and it never held me back. If anything it helped me. I have a couple broker friends in London one of whom I went to university with. He sat geology. The other did law. It wasn't relevant at all subject wise to what they now do on the stock market for HSBC bank. His uni references and the fact that he'd aced a good degree were all that they were looking for.

Ask yourself what you feel passionate about and study that . If you're really annoyed with the way the way you've been let down: politics or journalism - that way you can either sort it out yourself or at least voice your opinion in a daily spleen-venting rant until someone else sorts out the system for you. It does sound like you've been let down though.

[anna]

Anna,

Speaking from my own experiences when choosing a course to study at university I would always go with what you are passionate about rather than what you think is a sensible, practical choice. If you enjoy the subject then the battle is already half won. Many of my friends dropped out too because they had chosen the wrong course. Fact is even if you realise later on that the degree you are studying for is not the direction you want to go in then the degree in itself will still open doors. Approach a university with a degree already under your belt and the chances are you'll get accepted even if it isn't a relevant degree. It shows you have commitment and an ability to study. At A-level I sat history, economics, maths and a general studies course. I fancied going into business but I enjoyed the history too much and found it much easier than the subjects. I could do well in it without as much effort. I studied History at university because it was a degree and I wanted to enjoy the student life as well without being under too much pressure. As it turned out I ended up actually going down the business track as a career after university but I don't regret for a second the choice to do the easier fun option and it never held me back. If anything it helped me. I have a couple broker friends in London one of whom I went to university with. He sat geology. The other did law. It wasn't relevant at all subject wise to what they now do on the stock market for HSBC bank. His uni references and the fact that he'd aced a good degree were all that they were looking for.

Ask yourself what you feel passionate about and study that . If you're really annoyed with the way the way you've been let down: politics or journalism - that way you can either sort it out yourself or at least voice your opinion in a daily spleen-venting rant until someone else sorts out the system for you. It does sound like you've been let down though.

Yeah, I have definately been let down. Sometimes I think about going back to USM for my music ed degree, but I don't know if music is really my passion.AHHHHH...I don't know . I keep catching myself evaluating every teacher I have so there is definately a teacher in me somewhere. I know just enough to be pessimistic but not enough to know what to do about it. :Servent:

[No Worries]

Then chill out and go travelling for a bit. Leave in the next few months and you can get the tail end of the ski season in Europe and still be there for the summer. Bliss.

[anna]

A little traveling sounds like a good idea. Thanks No Worries.

Btw..is No Worries an Austrialian saying? The first time I heard that was when I saw the movie,Crocodille Dunde with Paul Hogan.

[No Worries]

A little traveling sounds like a good idea. Thanks No Worries.

Btw..is No Worries an Austrialian saying? The first time I heard that was when I saw the movie,Crocodille Dunde with Paul Hogan.

Yeah. Its like ketchup. I use it with everything. It kinda sums up the laid back oz way to life, except when it comes to sport.

[anna]

Yeah. Its like ketchup. I use it with everything. It kinda sums up the laid back oz way to life, except when it comes to sport.

I thought so. It's kinda like Tabasco sauce(Cajun ketchup). I hear people say it when they want to tell someone to chill out or something. I like that saying. The people in Louisiana have a laid back attitude also. I guess I am just a going to have to pass me a good time as some would say in my neck of the woods.

have a good one :wave:

anna

[anna]

you're a fool. my mom went to college and I couldn't have asked for a better mother :loser:

Well I wouldn't say that Lucky is a loser. I would say that he has a difficult time dealing with reality. Education is necessary in order to be successful at anything you do. Unfortunately we don't always have the right opportunities to get the best education so we have to do the best we can with what we have even if we put ourselves at risk.

Sometimes you have to take chances in order to get the tools you need to succeed and women have to be very careful because we don't always have men to protect us; they can't be with us 24hrs/7days a week and the ones that are don't necessarily have the ability to protect us so we use wisdom in how we conduct ourselves and avoid certain people and situations if we can. The world is not a safe place, but that doesn't mean we should be fearful all of the time. It just means we should be careful and make good use of our time here.

[anna]

should women go to college?
of course, women are better organisers than men, it's important for them to have the education necessary for both them and society to better utilise their abilities.

I agree. If women are educated then they will be able to better equip their childern to meet the challenges the world throws at them because they will be familiar with what those challenges are. The important thing, however, is to have the wisdom to be able to use the experiences they have to give the insight and moral support the childern need to be successful. I do have to say that there are men who are more organized then women. I have learned alot about organization from my dad, but being a student has given me the most opportunity to learn to be disciplined and organized.

thanks bilbo for your input

[Yorzhik]

Well if thats how bad it is then I have to admit I'd be homeschooling as well if I couldn't get her into a good school. I still maintain that a good school is better than homeschooling.
Even if the schools were better academically, they still wouldn't be good. The problem is with the worldview used that is self-defeating.

No Worries continues:
I believe homeschooling is important anyway but on top of normal school. Its easy for me to say this or that, obviously I don't live in that environment and I am fortunate in that I am in a position where I could pack up and move to another if I ever needed to and work would follow.
Okay.

But if this is the case I would have thought the government and private investors would be falling over to provide cash for small localised, community ran schools to be set up, almost ran like small businesses.
Whoa, stop right there. As soon as government is involved, then there is no such thing as private investors. That's not only common sense, that's also true based on every precedent of this type in history. So your question is: why doesn't gov't do something about the poor schools? It is because the current state of public schools is the only outcome possible when gov't raises children. But not the final outcome... it will get worse before the end.

No Worries continues:
Are there not any enterprise schemes and small bursaries for such community style projects?
No. Once gov't is involved then those ideas must give way.

We can agree that teachers can have a great influence on schools (I'm not against schools, just gov't schools). And, by necessity, parents must have control of their child's education because it is the parent's responsibility to raise their children, and no private venture can be forced.

So the solution is thus: the gov't must exit the school business. That means no taxes for schools, and no truancy laws. Then private corps and individuals and co-operations will step in and provide as good an education as can be found in any situation.

[No Worries]

Why can government and business and parent/teacher groups not work together. If the government is not involved then what about areas that don't have large amounts of business or industry. At the moment it just seems like passing the baton from one group to another. Everybody should be responsible for carrying the baton.

Parents should not consider themselves as good as teachers at teaching a specific field.

Big business/ industry should not be excluded in the face of government. They are a significant part of the community and support the society with lower unemplomment and by improving living conditions. A sense of community reduces crime.

Government regulation should not be excluded because of the presence of industry/business.

Teacher's should not assume a role of primary carer over a child. A child is raised by its parents and they the parents are primarily responsible for it.

[firechyld]

Yeah. Its like ketchup. I use it with everything. It kinda sums up the laid back oz way to life, except when it comes to sport.

I knew you were an Aussie the minute I saw the handle. :)

It really is a catch all phrase here...

[Yorzhik]

Why can government and business and parent/teacher groups not work together. If the government is not involved then what about areas that don't have large amounts of business or industry. At the moment it just seems like passing the baton from one group to another. Everybody should be responsible for carrying the baton.
There is no problem with the gov't working together with parent/teacher groups. It's just that the gov't entity will be in charge. But perhaps you can give an example of how gov't can work with parent/teacher groups; oversite? funding?

Your appeal to business or industry is mislaid (unless the business or industry is a school). Any industry or business that is not focused on its core will lose money, and more unemployment doesn't help the community. If you want to say that it reduces crime to have educated people then you're proposing an inefficient way of going about it. The justice system should be measured by the crime it reduces, and the school businesses/industry will be much better at educating kids than, let's say, a paper mill, would be.

And no, we shouldn't all be responsible for carrying the baton. I'm not responsible for the paper that the paper mill makes, and the they aren't responsible for educating my kids.

Parents should not consider themselves as good as teachers at teaching a specific field.
This is true. However, more important than teaching a specific field is the character that is taught when teaching. And there is rarely a teacher that does that better than a parent.

Big business/ industry should not be excluded in the face of government.
They must be, by definition. Authority always flows downhill, and gov't will always be above business/industry in authority.

NW continues:
They are a significant part of the community and support the society with lower unemplomment and by improving living conditions. A sense of community reduces crime.
Yeah, sure. Just don't forget that only people are able to give charity. Businesses/industry is not able to give charity.

Government regulation should not be excluded because of the presence of industry/business.
Unless the intention is for the school business/industry to do its job. If gov't is involved then it will be a gov't program by necessity.

Teacher's should not assume a role of primary carer over a child. A child is raised by its parents and they the parents are primarily responsible for it.
If you have children for 8 hours a day, you are a primary carer. You cannot administrate kids for that long without doing so.



All this has shown me is that you don't have a great grasp on what is real and what is masked in economics and government.