Choosing an alternative lifestyle means that I would have to go through a bit of a bureaucratic rigmarole in my home country, if I suddenly decided I wanted a “proper education”. With writing, that’s never been something that interested me because you can’t teach writing. And you certainly can’t teach talent.
Another passion of mine, namely drama, is something that can be taught. And after an interesting conversation, I set about weighing just how much I love the world of theater, and exploring what legalities I’d need to take care of to do school properly in that field.
While I came up with multiple options, passing an examination to certify my education was a non-negotiable, so I started playing around with the American SAT exam. It seemed the most accessible from where I was standing, so I decided to give it a go. Only in practice. You know, see how I felt about the general idea.
First, I opened the math section of the mock-exam, which eased me in by asking something about 3x-6. Bunch of ‘x’s in the multiple choice answers, none of which made sense to me. Unlike most 17 and 18 year olds taking this exam, I have the benefit of some lived experience in the real world. And I found myself wondering where, in the last seven years of being a legal adult, have I once needed the solution of 3, 7 or 19 x’s in my day-to-day life.
After closing the math section, I figured I’d give the other half of the exam, the Critical Reading/Thinking bit a try. You know, just to see how I’d score. After all, I expected to do poorly in math, a subject I’ve always disliked. But Critical Reading? A reader and writer like myself? I figured I’d breeze through. And to be fair, I scored an 86% out of 100% which, for someone who hasn’t had anything to do with traditional schooling in a decade, I reckon is alright.
The problem, though, was that I was expecting this to be the reasonable bit of the exam. Like fair, math I have no pretense of understanding. But reading. This is the bit that’s supposed to help graduates express themselves, think critically and digest the basic news coming their way. Can’t be that hard, right?
Not only was it needlessly hard. It was useless. Getting 17-year-olds to memorize the definitions of “lacunal”, “puerperal” or “sirocco” isn’t preparing them for a meaningful, intellectual existence. It’s only thumping them over the head with words they don’t know, have no interest in knowing and frankly, no need for.
It’s no wonder the kids think education is shit if these exams are browbeating them for not knowing what a “gambrel” is. They’re not wrong.
The exam also features some short texts, each with its own bunch of questions. The first one was about certain loan types in different states and featured at least one question that (I checked) was not answered in the text. Besides, what kind of experience has a kid at that age had with big banks for this to make any sense? Because this is the sort of information that most of us understand by relating it to a previous experience in our adult life. We read a question like that and try to assimilate with the one time we did have to interact with a big bank and make sense of the nonsense they were throwing at us. What chance do teenagers have of that?
Another text was about playwright Eugene O’Neill and how ironic it is basically that although O’Neill’s themes were deeply American, his work’s still very popular in Europe. All good and well, finally a topic I can relate to. Followed by the question, what would disprove the paragraph’s conclusion?
I chose wrong on that one. The answer was “That O’Neill never traveled to Europe”. I thought, how? How does that disprove anything? In the end, I didn’t waste too much time trying to understand it, but I did spend some time pitying young kids in the traditional education system.
It was an interesting experience for me, as I’ve spent these past 6-7 years working as a writer for various publications and different clients. Not once have I needed the words I encountered in this text and I am a pretty verbose writer myself.
And if writers and journalists aren’t gonna need this stuff, you can be damn sure kids going to work in marketing or sales or whatever are sure as hell not gonna need it. Which does beg the question... shouldn’t schools be preparing children for the actual world they’re gonna live in?
If you’re gonna teach children they can’t even face the world out there without words like “ochlocracy”, it’s no wonder they’re choosing to stay kids forever.
I can't even claim to have such a masterful vocabulary but I have done a number of public speaking and even my own share of writing. You don't need these words! I attempted writing ACT once. Didn't get to the final exams because of lack of resources but those figures though.
P S: Circle Theorem, Differentiation and Integration has never helped anyone in the real life and never will.
Well, these topics you did mention does actually help engineers in certain fields😂
The English vocabulary and oral section is a load of bull though.
In which job, as an engineer/salesman/banker/chemist would you be asked to transcribe "Euphrates" or told to spell it.
Lol. Transcription is just helpful in knowing the pronunciation. I still benefit a lot from knowing the transcription of words.
I believe is more helpful to learn shorthand 😂😂😂
It has helped in some fields like engineering, don't generalize ideas you don't have practical use right now as useless.
The education system doesn't fully prepare people from meeting what really is demanded from them in the real world. A lot of the subjects are wasted time.
Yeah, it's okay not to generalize them. But for the most part, it hasn't helped a whole lot of us.
I feel the same way.