It’s not a person to person basis. (well sometimes it is, I am looking at you Jenny Mcarthy) It’s that the entirety of mankind is living in a constant haze. We have the tools to at least help clear out some of the fog. Instead we get people arguing for all sorts of nonsense in the name of the nonsense going on in their heads that actually cause harm to all of us. From the man made global warming deniers to These idiots. All of us are victims to some degree or another, the issue for me is that we should be doing something to help solve the problem instead of just plodding along hoping for the best.
That’s because AP Macro and Micro are not supposed to be personal finance classes; having personal finance there would be like teaching horticulture in the middle of algebra class.
I think the request is for a class dedicated to personal finance. And I’m just saying: that already exists, and is required in at least one school district (I admit there are probably school districts that don’t have a class in personal finance).
Part of the issue, I think, is that a class in personal finance doesn’t automatically mean the graduates will internalize the material. How many high school graduates would struggle with questions like “X + 4 = 7; solve for X” or “Who was the US President during the American Civil War?”? I’m not advocating getting rid of personal finance classes, or section on rhetoric, or even a whole class on fallacies and biases (although I do wonder what we’d drop to make room for it). I’m simply saying that “we should teach this in school” doesn’t mean it will have a meaningful effect on society - the problems of personal finance are, I believe, a problem of intellect and self-control, not a problem of knowledge or education.
Probably a helpful direction to take the thread would be to ask “Given the following real-world high school curriculum, what classes would you drop and what would you add?” I think there is an awful lot of “we should include this” without a lot of pointing out that including a new topic necessarily means shortening or even dropping another topic.
I absolutely agree with this. Already, a lot of kids are taking health and speech and such in summer school or at night to fit in all their core and all the electives they want to take.
If they really wanted to make it harder they wouldn’t require algebra and literature to graduate high school. “Hey, you are no longer required to go to school! haha, now I will fool all the little peasants!”
Politicians want to be re-elected, and most of them are smart enough to figure out that an educated populace gets jobs, and people with jobs tend to re-elect politicians. Not to mention if one state decides to actually dumb down their education the other states will crush them economically. Believing that politicians have intentionally restricted education is just another conspiracy theory.
Well, I don’t know about that, but apparently Texas Pubs don’t like it.
Witch burning… still going on in the 21st century. 
“The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it” - Lawrence Krauss
So yeah, more critical thinking is needed in schools and biases need to be confronted head on.
Well, I suggested it, time to put up or shut up.
The following is the Fulton County (GA) Graduation Requirements (warning:PDF).
For those that don’t want to read, it’s 4 units of language arts (i bet rhetoric is in there), 4 units of science (hopefully critical thinking), 4 units of math, 3 of social studies (including a semester of economics, which doesn’t seem to deal with personal finance, unfortunately), 3 credits of either language, ‘career skills’, or fine arts, 1 unit of PE, and 4 units of electives.
Honestly, I’d replace the more theorectical economics class with an actual class on personal finance. Other than that, the curriculum looks pretty good to me - whether or not the students retain or use the material is on them.
ETA: There is in fact a course on “financial literacy” offered, although it is not required, that seems to cover personal finance.
Well, she did weigh the same as a duck.
Well, where do you think the missiles + military tools and blobiators of the future will come from?
You don’t check too much what they are up to, huh?
I would take a look at adults in society now and see what they have retained from classes like language. This is purely my experience talking but I can’t name one person I know who has ever put their high school French/German/whatever to use as an adult in any meaningful form. The same could be said of any number of courses, but given that most 4th year students aren’t even close to speaking a language with fluency I have often wondered why we bother. (I get that its at least partially based on the European model but in Europe you actually need to speak multiple languages) Of course the other side of that idea is to find out if x number of years spent learning a language badly is worth it on some other level.
I am aware of those, but I don’t think they ruin my point. The politicians aren’t trying to get rid of literature, history, and math. They’re trying to get rid of evolution, which has way more to do with appeasing the religious than with trying to dumb down the population. Someone who doesn’t understand evolution or believes in intelligent design can still do math and have critical reasoning (and, will likely see through the intelligent design BS).
I think the problem with language is that we spend 3-4 years on it in high school, instead of 13 years starting in kindergarten. It’s an area where we don’t spend enough time, rather than too much.
But the larger point of “what do adults retain?” is a good one.
That approach doesn’t seem to have worked before, so why do you think it’ll work now?
What approach? 
I am certainly NOT advocating for removing evolution from any curriculum. I’m simply saying that the attack on evolution is motivated by a desire to get support from fundies, not out of any desire to dumb down the schools.
And people certainly had critical thinking skills before evolution was a glimmer in Darwin’s eye, so I don’t see why removing it would immediately cause students to become slack-jawed morons (well, any more so than half of them are already).
Yes. I think we should teach another thing that 99% of the students will forget before they graduate. It won’t do any good, but it will make a lot of us feel better.
It is not just that, they are moving to imposing also climate change denial. (there is a lot of math in the data and statistics that those tea partiers are denying) And here in Arizona the move from the right is to eliminate the history and literature of the Hispanics.
Yeah, I think this (despite the snark) gets to the nub of the issue: to be really useful, critical thinking and logical analysis have to be treated as an integral part of the approach to learning in general, from a pretty young age.
They’re like the decimal place-value number system: something to be used and built upon as part of the fundamental structure of education. Not like a Shakespeare play in senior English or Algebra 2, something that we add on to our accumulated set of topics studied but that tends to get forgotten, as John Mace notes.
Sometimes it is easy to forget, if you are away long enough, how the decision makers in schools are often lacking in critical thinking skills themselves.
For example, one year the chief administrator for a high school told the teachers to set goals for the school. We were to limit ourselves to six goals. No more, no less. Why six? Because there were six planning periods for teachers and the teachers who had the same planning periods were to get together and write one goal.
It didn’t matter how many goals were appropriate. One group of teachers was evenly divided between “Students will develop critical thinking skills” and “Students will be tardy for class less often.” The latter one was chosen by vote of the faculty. I wanted to put my head down and cry.
The six goals were announced and there was no further discussion on how to impliment these goals.
Teachers and administrators should be required to pass a critical thinking test before being allowed to instruct or mentor students.
With my fundamental English students, I tried to ask questions which required critical thinking most of lthe time. But I also taught them some of the techniques of propaganda. And in some of my classes we took advertisements from magazines and examined the claims critically. They really liked that.
Posted by GIGObuster, quoting source material:
I thought this had already been nixed by the court(s). I’m still aware that a lot of schools still try to sneak in Creationism and the other approach (ID). They failed on Creationism first and changed the textbooks to read Intelligent Design instead. The simple change in the wording of the textbook was used in court to show that it was just Creationism in disguise.
But I can’t remember which court or courts have ruled on this.
I think that a lot of science teachers would resign before being compelled to teach it as science.
Here is some information on the Supreme Court ruling on Edwards v. Aguillard (1987):
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court
The Supreme Court ruled on a law that appears to be just like the law quoted above. Creationists lost.
I know it feels like kids forget 99% of what they learn, but that’s just because once someone really knows something, it feels like totally obvious basic common sense. This is another one of those cognitive thingies.
Trust me. High school freshman are amazingly ignorant. They do learn–really learn–a lot over four years.