|
|
Comparison on education between Europe and East Asia
I dunno why there are so many subjects in East Asia.
In junior and senior high schools, they need to learn more than European.They don't have time playing football(there are so many soccer clubs in East Asia,for example),and they don't have time learning languages because they focus on industry,and preservation of their own culture.
Do u think the education of East Asia should be reformed to be like European?
I am not familiar with students in the Europe, but I do agree that people in the East Asia do too much work, which needs to be reformed. As I know, students in the East should learn the same subjects for many times, the only difference is the latter ones are more complicated. I do think there is no need to repeat so many times, student should have more time to play and have fun. Like learning a language, why should they spend a semester just to learn good morning, how old are you, which can be easily mastered in practice, not write. The Chinese world is a language provider who offers courses based on scientific system; maybe you can have a try. http://www.learnchinese.bj.cn
Good question. I too took a lot of unnecessarily time-consuming subjects, undermining my potential of getting fluent in multiple tongues in no time.
Actually, I'd, rather, say even at university much of my time is being taken by quite a few unnecessarily tiring pieces of assignments that won't help with the subjects they are about, such as some compulsory university English class. If I can write in antimoon, and when I CAN write fluently in daily correspondences with the scholars, why can't I write decently in the office and in future studies? For other subjects, yeah, you guys know very well know, a Hong Kong guy like me always writes stuff (except for the Chinese department) in English, and every course has its own regulations about how to write an essay properly (and sometimes for the taste of individual lecturers/professors). So, WHY bother with compulsory English class that claims to teach sth (like how to write an essay properly) without the exact content I'm looking for at the same university?
This is too interesting to ask because I can guess AUTHORITIES want ME to write crap like this in the class, without any help with my MAJORS at all, to spread some ideologies. Laughable. So, they are employing English teachers each year to teach something crap. The teachers aren't crap, but I'm quite sure, yeah, those Australian/Canadian/American teachers, etc, are really coming to the wrong place to teach "English", which students like us have no use for.
There are some more really lame, unhelpful classes that are compulsory, or courses I find really crap after finishing them even with good grades, but, well, let's focus on English.
I hope Germans/Americans can answer me this question: how is your Hochschule/college system? Any compulsory lessons, lectures, and tutorials AT ALL? I really hate this idea and, yes, you might see my political rant (sort of) about definitions, but here, I truly believe some of your western academic institutions, guys, are really awesome for not offering crap like those I put above.
Hong Kong is rather like a place where undergraduates (of coz, our future medical doctors and lawyers are doing very great here...their majors are definitely useful for the whole society everywhere, sort of) are often just force-fed teaching content they wouldn't like to digest. Yeah, the uni's here are implicitly claiming, in some cases, that you have the FREEDOM to choose, and the university won't interfere your private life, academic results... at all (practically, everything else, becoz you are assuming adult roles and so they wont care, which is great).
Yet, the ultimate question, which probably many highly-educated Americans know, is: just how GOOD is this university for MY major(s)? Of coz, I can't say any subjects related to Hong Kong are/must be "crap", when they are the only stuff you can possibly take about this particular subject here... but then, some other subjects are obviously not worth taking. Just like the economies of you guys, I too have to consider the prospect of studying, for whatever purpose that is of use to me... I need career too, I need money too, and I need life too. Some subjects, then, are either always absent here (like doing some obscure languages in linguistics, which aren't spoken at all in my country), or you'd just be turned off immediately by the content that you aren't really interested in.
So far, the greatest injustice is just about compulsory subjects. For majors, though, I think a subject is worth my taking only if it has some decent pre-requisites, without which I would think it's... too easy to take and thus of very limited value, even in academic terms.
==
You might ask: just why? If you don't "like" a subject, then fine, just don't take it. Why are you still, sort of, ranting about a subject you voluntarily choose?
It's more than university. As all you know, "university" doesn't mean you take a lot of books, read them all, write enough essays, get it corrected by a few professors, and you are done. Reading knowledge is also something we pursue, but more than that is the interaction between the teachers and the students. Of coz, the scene is OK here, why not? The problem is just that, like compulsory tutorials (which count as part of your grade), sometimes it's so difficult to measure how much you learn, and so they have such measures that counter-intuitively undermine its fairness.
Besides the problem with teaching personnel (involving some subjectivity in marking essays, which is quite universal), the quality of your classmates also has to be considered. A class isn't good with too many students. A class full of incompetent students won't do you good, either.
There must be some limitations to university studies. Needless to say, at my age and at my position, I can't blame anyone. When, for example, linguistics is FAR more doable in quite a few TOP US universities, which I don't have both the money and the academic strength to study at, I DO think it isn't doable at all in my city - when I also think I have no use for it. At this stage, then, I know very well that, in this case, identity (and opportunity) is more important than ability. If a country wants to be a center of education, it must have the money and the support (like students of their own country who won't study abroad and leave it for good); if a person wants to become a scholar, he, too, must have the money and the support. Without this? Do something else then.
Thru the years, indeed, I truly think US is a dream country for further studies in many, many subjects, but I just won't have the opportunity now (yeah, guys, don't you know your country is very great for this? I'm not lying)
For example, ok, now, I see that your country has something called the Teaching Company that offers lectures in digital format just like selling albums of singers. So, the ones who can give lectures have to be selected so carefully with so .... high requirements, that they are guaranteed by it as, at least, "good" professors, for example. Then the problem is: first, of coz, you are supposed to pay to use the lectures. Second, when you have the lectures, you must, too, have the right kind of knowledge to understand the content.
By advanced I mean the US can offer something like this. Needless to say, then, along with lectures in this convenient format, I believe it's often worth the trouble and price of studying in your country, just becoz of the foreseeable benefits, at least for your studies (*thus your knowledge gained). What's the difference? Quality. It's not just about showing a nice-looking CV to my future xenophilic employers. It does teach something. (of coz, my local universities aren't that far worse in every aspect, either)
Generally, it's a reality that foreign university qualifications enhance one's true academic (and working) ability by a rather large extent, greater than many local grads. It's also, as I can testify, the national policy of sending the children of quite a few officials to study abroad, particularly in the US, for some political AND practical reasons. At the level of higher education, China's situation, as I can guess now, is more competent students, who might form the elite class, are very, very usually with foreign uni. quali. You might even find it very handy to practice your Chinese in your great country of the US, without having to going to their home country where... practically no exam elites and very wealthy guys would even consider staying behind.
Despite my complaints, my city is now still, after all, a much better place for university studies than most cities in the north, and actually a lot of mainland guys find it beneficial to be here; the problem is now purely cultural, that many of the LOCALS here are just too incompetent when facing the mainland elites. While the requirement (particular English) isn't low at all for these entrants from other places (elites are by definition much stronger than mediocre guys), the main culprit, as I see it, is the long-term neglect of knowledge in general here. Quite a few of my ex-classmates, then, all happened to get to know some of these elites, and they are benefiting from it.
<<They don't have time playing football (there are so many soccer clubs in East Asia,for example)>>
Isn't that funny? Why there are there so many soccer clubs if they don't have the time to play? Weird.
But anyway, are you trying to imply people in Europe know more languages because they have more time to study?
That's false. I believe that, if they know more, it's because of a space/ distance relation rather than the time dedicated to studying other languages.
There are also many cultures in Europe, and also in East Asia, a comparison shouldn't be that easy.
Well I study in Europe. But erm.
Well, you can choose yourself if you follow the lessons or not. They don't care if you fuck up your studies. A big part is available trough the internet, and because of this lectures aren't really necessary anymore. The length of your day depends on how you like it.
In primary school we had it quite easy.. Just monday to Friday to school between 8:30am and 15:15pm. After this we could do whatever we wanted. Homework didn't exist in primary school, except maybe some geography. At least I've never learned Dutch words at home.
English starts in the 5th class. But the amount of lessons is very low, at most 1 lesson a week in primary school. And after the 6th class you're done.
Than secondary school, where there are several levels you have to choose. Don't know exactly how 'vmbo' works, but that the 'normal' level. 'Havo' and 'vwo' are the ones for smarter than average children.
In the first three years you'll get several different mandatory subjects, these include the following:
French, German, Dutch, English, Maths, Science, Biology and Chemics. Oh and some other stuff like 'Music' and Handwork, like how to work with wood or clay. Further there's some introduction in several world religions.
Well, after your third year you can choose a 'package'. I chose for Nature and technics.Which meant I had mandatory stuff:
English, Dutch, Science1 and Science2, Maths B1 and B2, Chemic, some stuff about politics?, and I think that's it. You have to choose one third language, which became German, and some other subject which became Biology.
After I did this, I chose to do 'vwo' and I got the same package but with French included again :).
To my opinion everything became easier and easier to the end.
Now I'm in university and it's a bit more difficult, as I lack some discipline because everything was damn easy in the past. I think the Asian guys have a big advantage there.
We keep contact through e-mail, some subjects are given by powerpoint through the internet. In fact you don't have to be at university too much.
To my opinion the reason people from Europe know more languages is because they have to travel short distances to be in an area where an other language is spoken. Like, I only have to travel 50km to be in Germany. 400km to be in France, swim 150km to be in the UK. And especially the Netherlands have always been a trading country. Because of this we had to accomodate to the 'customers', that's the reason why we learn more languages. Not because we have more spare time.
Young people in Europe and also in USa are hedonist and prefer to play with the Playstation 3 instead of studying in order to become respectful and useful citizens for their respective nations. That is the reason why I think the Chinese, who are raised in a working hard mentality, will soon overtake the Occidental societies. Western countries are decadent, young people only think of drugs, sex , videogames and easy money. On the other hand we all can see how the new Chinese generations want to become better by working hard to make their country a superpower. The education system in China is much better than in Europe because they demand much more to their pupils. In Europe the vast majority of students are functional illiterates. What a shame!.
«Young people in Europe and also in USA are hedonist and prefer to play with the Playstation 3 etc.»
You're beeing illuded by another charateristic of western countries, which is, not hiding problems, showing the social and economic realities as they are in order to improve things. This is done by the daily work of free press, which is supposed to be socialy responsable and have ethic patterns.
That can make a few people take the part for the whole, and be misleded by the apparent reinforcement of his own prejudices.
About the chinese people's capacity of work hard, nobody doubts of it. Still, chinese products reaching western market are for the most part useless, 3rd class cheaper copies of western products, that will brake after a couple of weeks. In a word, garbage. If China wants to be an economic power, it really has to produce better, as producing in large quantiites isn't enough. Quality control systems, that's the key. And to become a superpower, that's even more complicated, it envolves creating your own standards, which is more than mere technological efficiency in offering products modelled by western demand.
During the inauguration of the Olympic games my national TV interviewed some chinese living here, and they were all quite impressed and proud. One said "Our China is very powerful". Well, that made me LO realy L. At least in my country, what they sell is kitsch trash that only very poor people buy. "Bought at the chinese" is synonim of low quality. Chinese have a long walk to do before getting close to be an economic superpower. Read some Chuang Tse and cool down your high hopes
«Guest Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:27 am GMT
Young people in Europe and also in USa are hedonist and prefer to play with the Playstation 3 instead of studying in order to become respectful and useful citizens for their respective nations. That is the reason why I think the Chinese, who are raised in a working hard mentality, will soon overtake the Occidental societies. Western countries are decadent, young people only think of drugs, sex , videogames and easy money. On the other hand we all can see how the new Chinese generations want to become better by working hard to make their country a superpower. The education system in China is much better than in Europe because they demand much more to their pupils. In Europe the vast majority of students are functional illiterates. What a shame!. »
I'm afraid you're correct. However Americans say the USA is even worse compared to Europe. I've heard this from several Americans, but I think it's quite equal. We all lack discipline because we don't have to. Because the amount of content isn't that much. I've heard from teachers that the 1960's mavo(which became vmbo now), was equal to current havo. 1960's havo was equal to current vwo. And 1960's vwo was above current vwo..
I think the real problems started here first with the 'fun'-packages at the end of the 1980's and during the 1990's. This meant a package of Dutch, English, simple maths or no maths at all, and some 'fun' subjects like music, handstuf, working with clay, and dessin. However in that time the teachers could give tests whenever they wanted. So you simply HAD to learn all the time.
In 1998 they saw something was wrong. So they made a new plan. Things became more difficult, you had to choose a specific package. (Like I said I took Nature and Technics.(N&T)) There's also -Culture and community-(C&M), -Economics and community(E&M)- and -Nature and health-N&G).
All have a specific package, but some things are mandatory:
English and Dutch are the same for everyone.
The Nature subjects were forced to have 1 more language, the easy thing (only reading and speaking). E&M should have one full language and one 'half'. And C&M should have to extra full.
Than other subjects:
Maths in 4 tastes: A1, A1+A2, B1, B1+B2.
Easiest for C&M, most difficult for N+T.
So in fact the government did this to make specific alpha and beta students. But the system has changed already in 2006. It's much easier now again, where I already thought I had it easy (I was in the first 'packages' group.)
Another thing introduced with this system was one test per semester. And it was known on which date. Because of this no one did anything until the day before the test. To my opinion this doesn't work at all. It has really made. But someone who's 15 should be forced at school to do something. A 14-year-old can't be expected from he has the discipline to do everything on his own with a planning system. They don't have the experience to do that.
The education in the Netherlands is failing big time.
Do chinese pupils study their classics at school (I mean Chuang-Tsu, Lao-Tsu, Confucius etc.)? If not, are they curious in reading and learning from them?
As someone pointed out, the comparative study of teaching systems is difficult while there are no definite angles to attack the issue.
In my opinion, the state social system drives the quality of teaching system.
The communist states had a better teaching system since their goal was to produce human capital, cheap labor force in any domain, for the greater good of everyone, as the official doctrine stated. More important, the teaching system was virtually free and everyone could have employed a market approach to fare better in the academic field. The industry was chronically outdated and only few industries thrived in socialism.
However, the system's output is pretty much useless in the market economy that thrives today after soicalism's failure since no basic understanding of economics, offer and demand system, no practical knowledge to achieve the means that reward excellence. So the system produced just human capital.
The western system is far better for only you have to pay to learn, so you're hell of motivated to have your return of investment back.
As for east-west comparison, I would venture to say that the approach is different for westernes in terms of discipline and cultivating the creative traits in kids by carefully stimulating the cognitive process. Loosing the motivation and ambition by this team cooperation approach is the biggest drawback, in my opinion.
The easterners are prone to a conservative approach that has been tossed out in the western system, they still operate on Comenius/Pestalozzi paradigm of phisical development and cognitive development as being in synch.
Thanks for the post, it stirred fond memories of my training as a high school teacher, although I never practiced it.
Q.E.D.
<< Young people in Europe and also in USa are hedonist and prefer to play with the Playstation 3 instead of studying in order to become respectful and useful citizens for their respective nations>>
Young people are more likely to play on the Xbox 360, but, I think you are unfortunately right.
What's wrong in playing computer games?
I really don't see where the harm is.
I played Doom3 day and night and I would like to think about me as being a respectful and useful citizen.
Please state your reasoning.
Q.E.D.
There's nothing wrong but, the Chinese youngsters aren't wasting their time on hedonistic pursuits. They are working/studying hard day and night to become THE global superpower.
|