The debate "School makes us all depressed" was started by
March 1, 2020, 10:06 am.
43 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 34 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
eva_pet35 posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
jrardin12 posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument, civilizeddiscussion posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
eva_pet35, StrangeTime, crazy_troglodyte, alemanchris, Impossible, tyler0300 and 37 visitors agree.
jrardin12, coree10, Nemiroff, civilizeddiscussion, bitchimaqueen and 29 visitors disagree.
1. psychology was just an example of why fundamentals are important. it may be an isolated exception, but generally speaking, fundamentals cannot be skipped.
2. applying psychological principles to interpersonal development or learning is not a complete psychology class, it is a subject within psychology class. other parts of the class may require other prior knowledge.
generally most science 101 textbooks begin with a run down of important events in the development of that science and its theories. a history lesson. learning that freud discovered psychoanalysis at the turn of the 20th century doesnt provide much information unless you knew the general situation during that time.
psychological disorders rely much more on neurotransmitter chemistry and im sure theres a whole brain anatomy/physiology segment that assumes knowledge of biology.
I'm still not convinced a deep understanding of biology or history are as necessary for psychology as algebra and arithmetic are for calculus.
The relevant parts of biology and sociology are short and basic enough to be taught in psychology classes. For example, you don't need a deep understanding of neurotransmitter chemistry to learn and apply psychological principles to interpersonal development or learning.
those classes are taught as ap classes in high school... but those are optional college classes in high school that more advanced kids can take. and they do earn them college credits. they are not part of the default high school curriculum.
the problem with school is not the subjects or choice, but the presentation. too much focus on rote memorization and useless specific dates. it trully is boring.
switching to more engaging, free thinking model will make it more fun, but that has nothing to do with subject choice or skipping subjects. just teaching strategies.
in the usa, precalc is taught in highschool, along with basic physics. no calculus or quantum anything, besides maybe touching on the standard model. as i said i would be all for accelerating all of education, but that would also accelerate the foundational stuff as well.
so i agree they dont have a higher barrier of entry, the barriers are similar.
calculus does not require other subjects, but it does require understanding of most previous math lessons. the problem isnt with psychology vs advanced math/physics, as they are all advanced. psychology is a mix of advanced biology (gotta know neurons and neurotransmitters + basic brain anatomy and cell functionality), along with a fundamental understanding of social studies and human history.
wether you replace psychology with the advanced math or advanced physics, my argument remains the same. you cant learn quantum mechanics until you learn physics and math. you cant even start on physics without arithmatic, algebra, and geometry which are even more fundamental for example. accelerating? yes. skipping? no.
All of year 11 and 12 accounting is shoved into a single semester at university. All of grade 11 and 12 maths is shoved into a single semester at university. I don't see why the reverse can't be applied to one or two introductory psychology units about intrapersonal and interpersonal development, science of learning, bias, etc.
Yes, the more you come in with the more you'll take away, but that's like every class. I don't think psychology has a higher barrier to entry than calculus or quantum physics, and both of those are taught at the high school level.
Exposure to psychological concepts will help more people than advanced maths and physics anyway.
11 to 12 can take AP classes which are like college. that is borderline, i wouldnt be against it. in fact i would support an all around acceleration of the cirriculum. however the only factor you denied was the math (the proof and explanation for the taught outcomes, pretty big), but not the history, grammar/vocab, or science backgrounds. the foundations may be a bit boring, but they are necessary.
also, i believe you are referencing the very fundamentals like a 101 class. any further progress will require more competencies. i think the value of generalized fundamentals are underestimated.
I do agree psychology should be taught at a basic level to grades 11 and 12. It's gives transferable knowledge that's applicable to everything you do. Giving students the tools to intelligently reflect on their interpersonal and interpersonal development at that young age should be a must.
You don't need to cover the statistics of how these effects are discovered to understand how psychological theories can be used to help you.
As I get older I find myself studying a lot more and I really want to get a master's degree and then a doctrite.
psychology sounds like a college level class, you were talking about primary and secondary school. are you sure you are ready for that?
psychology involves statistics, which involve math. basic biology and the scientific method. understanding of both people and society is helpful, which comes from history. and finally grammar and vocabulary is just all around helpful for every subject and interaction.
dont you think the amount of choice should depend on what level the student is? you have full control of classes and schedule in college.
I would like to learn a lot about psychology and more about the mind of a person but my school doesn't not have so I have to literally buy books in order to learn it myself.
what kind of choices do you want?
Yeah okay but working is more valuable as you earn income and you also get to choose your preferable job, even if you may not get into it. Primary and secondary school tend to not have a lot of choices for the student. By the way, this is not about the value or importance of school, this is about the perspective of the students about school in general.
I think most adults prefer to not go to work too. That's why the gig economy, freelancing, and telecommuting are on the rise. That doesn't mean working with others doesn't have value though. A learning environment like a school also develops social skills which is arguably more valuable and applicable to the rest of your life than whatever you're studying.
That is true, though a lot of students would prefer to not go to school. I would release a lot of stress and pressure built up throughout my life if I could take a break to heal after tough situations and you will have a lot more advantage to spend time in your own preferences aswell as using that time and freedom to learn a lot more about yourself
I would say the prescence of people surrounding you or studying in general. In my school, a lot of teachers stress us the hell out and pressure us to study for hours a day, even on Christmas holidays one of my teachers told us to study 6 hours a day.
Do you mean as in the building or the act of studying?
Teenagers in general are prone to being overly emotional. Tack on the added pressures of trying to figure out who you are and fitting into social norms. I would imagine that depression among teenagers would be quite common with or without school.