Great i was thinking to make a thread about the education system by comparing the education system in Cambodia wit the developed countries. Now i don't think it is necessary to create another thread, i might just read any posts here.

I went to a painfully liberal high school and so was lucky to get anything out of it at all. Though most of what I studied did not bear any direct relationship to the work I ended up doing, much of it provided me with the foundation to learn new skills (as SC mentioned before,) I learned how to learn. The most useful/applicable stuff I learned in high school came from math, the sciences, literacy (some knowledge of the cannon and the ability to write,) and shop. The least useful in getting on with real life were things like art, conservation and social studies. As for my university education, it probably would have been more relevant if I had stayed in the field I was trained for, which I didn't. Still, I again learned how to learn, to write, reason and discipline my thought, all of which is helpful in almost any job.

I went to a poor inner city school for elementary school and middle school, and before that I was home schooled. The home schooling taught me to love learning. The poor school sucked. We had outdated maps of the USSR (lived in this district '93 to '00) and no extracurricular activities. Then we moved to a nice suburb for high school. The school was great in that I could take all sorts of electives like psychology, philosophy, civics, etc. But the best part was it had a great, well funded debate team. I consider the education I got from debate more valuable than the education I got from any class.

phuketrichard wrote:school teaches ( at least in the west) u to think for ur self, to examine everything and not take anything for granted, also opens you up to new ideas.
actual courses for the most part are irrelevant

The degree shows prospective employers you can start, follow thru and complete something.

This is it. As Stroppy says, an undergrad degree (especially those artsy-fartsy ones) teach one to learn. I do think a lot of the high school stuff I learned is useful and used pretty much everyday (basic maths, writing/reading). Though I'll readily admit that all the more advanced stuff like Algebra was a total waste of time. I had politics/history/geography in high school though. The problem is that you need to give a bit of everything so that students are well-rounded. Most people don't know what they want to do until they're in their early 20s, so it's pointless to force them to study either math or politics at a young age. Creating a good curriculum really isn't easy and I'm not sure my ideas would be any better.

Come to think of it, I believe most of the stuff I learned in the military (which is essentially a big school) was way more useful in everyday life. Leadership, survival, teamwork, discipline, mental strength, map-reading and so on... I'd say they were all good skills to learn. Learning how to be a good shot and shooting a whole bunch of different types of weapons never really translated well into civilian life, but learning to drive/work on large vehicles was way more of an asset that algebra ever was.

Bitte_Kein_Lexus wrote:As Stroppy says, an undergrad degree (especially those artsy-fartsy ones) teach one to learn.

But surely we could start this from day 1, that is my point. Too much rote-learning at early stages. Teach commitment, so that employers say

'Damn, he got a high school diploma, look at that determination!'

I personally found GCE A levels way more demanding than even 2nd year university.

I agree, but how mature were you at that age? There's no miracle formula is what I'm saying.