I, for one, think that this is just pathetic. (http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=11141949)
Don't get me wrong, most high school students don't know very much about our country's history, or world history, for that matter. Still, most 5th graders know who was the first president, and high school students don't. How sad.
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f255/RevolverLink/Gifs/johnstewart_facepalm.gif)
Jon Stewart is not amused.
In all seriousness, it sickens me that people work so hard to make it into this country while this nation's own children barely put any effort at all into making it through high school.
It's not any one person's fault, it's the fault of all parents, students, teachers, lawmakers/lawenforcers, and everyone else involved for not taking education seriously. It is, like you said, quite disgusting. If you don't even know that George Washington was the first president of the United States, you shouldn't even be admitted into high school.
You've got to factor in how many kids probably got it wrong on purpose or just didn't take it.
If they got it wrong on purpose, they don't take life seriously enough, and the same could be said for those who didn't take it.
Quote from: Whocares on September 18, 2009, 09:18:12 PM
If they got it wrong on purpose, they don't take life seriously enough, and the same could be said for those who didn't take it.
Why should life be taken so seriously, man? There's a lot of stress during High School as-is, so I for one would take every opportunity to screw around that I could get, especially one so deliciously statistic-skewing as this.
Those who fail to take life seriously enough usually don't understand the consequences their actions can cause.
That's not true and I'm sure you know it.
So you mean to say that, let's just say, if Oklahomah decides to seriously change its education process, eliminating or seriously limiting sports, clubs, after-school activities, etc. (aka the fun stuff) because of such terrible results on that poll, all the students knew that it would happen?
Quote from: Whocares on September 19, 2009, 10:55:30 AM
So you mean to say that, let's just say, if Oklahomah decides to seriously change its education process, eliminating or seriously limiting sports, clubs, after-school activities, etc. (aka the fun stuff) because of such terrible results on that poll, all the students knew that it would happen?
Although I don't see why they would eliminate such things in lieu of simply imposing stricter benchmark testing, I would say that were such an outcome plausible it would be at the very least foreseeable.
Not to mention that they aren't going to change their education in the slightest because of that test, and it really has no impact on the world.
You never know, Shika. I, for one, think that if only 3% of all high school students in my state could pass a citizenship test, then something surely must be done.
Your views, however, are radically different from 99% of the people in America. That's just the honest truth.
Quote from: Davy Jones on September 19, 2009, 12:08:48 PM
Your views, however, are radically different from 99% of the people in America. That's just the honest truth.
So your saying that 99% of America thinks stupidity is okay as a form of redemption? Thanks, that makes me feel better about this country.
99% of America IS the stupidity, Whocares.
Duh. The problem is how does that get changed, and it is a very long and complicated problem that everyone and everything has a hand in.
I hate to take sides, but I would have to agree with Shika. But it's not just America, it's the whole world. Basically the entire leadership of the world is run by discrimination and senseless choices in some way, shape, or form, and it's even obvious. Stupidity is one of the worlds main problems.
From my perspective, this is definite facepalm fodder--that in itself is probably the reason why one needs to factor in the "screwing around" thing. How was the survey-test taken, exactly?
However...gah, I really should shut up now. I need to avoid another education palaver. >_<
Something alike was discussed on the ask.com,i can give someone a link if anybody need it
It is generally recognized that if you feel you should give a link, you probably need to give a link.
I'm pretty sure that's a bot.
LOLita
Maybe we should PM him and see if he actually provides a link.
But really, this adds nothing to the conversation, so I'll just lock this...unless someone has something to add, of course.
AHEM! i'm a high school student in oklahoma...
i'm pritty sure that the majority of my high school class mates know who the first president was.
not sure where those statistics came from, but they are not accurate.
Most statistics aren't accurate. You have to remember that polling an entire population isn't very feasible, given how large the target population can reach. Pollsters have to select random groupings and extrapolate their data from there, and it's very likely that the data will be skewed because not everyone can be represented. Even if the target population is high school students, the results can still be stilted, as students may not be present on the day the poll is taken.
Something else to keep in mind, Alex: The population of Oklahoma is roughly 3,687,050 people (a 2009 estimation according to Wikipedia). After trimming off adults and students who are in elementary or middle school, it is highly doubtful that the entire high school population of Oklahoma is in your school. Assuming that the poll is inaccurate because your class would represent a different statistic is inaccurate itself. It is highly unlikely (and probably mathematically impossible, but I don't much care to do the math to make sure) that every single high school in Oklahoma is going to match the results for the whole state. In other words, not every high school will have 75% of it's population not know who the first President was; some high schools might have 50% not know, or 12% not know, and so on.
Also, George Washington was only the first President elected under the Constitution. Technically, the first President was Peyton Randolph, under the First Continental Congress.
thanks hns, that makes me feel better :]
I feel like people precieve Oklahoma to be.. well, a lesser state. when I have traveled, people have actually asked if I live in a teepee... it's quite degrading. but then again, I feel sorry for whoever is ignorant enough to believe that we live in teepees and don't know who the first president was. :P
Quote from: Hi no Seijin on July 27, 2010, 09:32:42 PM
Also, George Washington was only the first President elected under the Constitution. Technically, the first President was Peyton Randolph, under the First Continental Congress.
You learn something new everyday. How did that term end up, if you recall?
You're welcome, Alex.
Mags, in lieu of a history book, Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Continental_Congress) I just remembered that GW technically wasn't the first president and then I hit up Wikipedia for some fact-checking.
Like every President ever, he was the worst President to one group, and the best President to another.
It says something about the American educational system that all we don't really learn about the first real president.
I'll just go out on a limb here and say that George Washington is actually still the first president. Why, you ask? Time.
Not even the Declaration of Independence was written yet during the First Continental Congress (come to think of it, didn't the colonies declare their independence from Great Britain during the Second Continental Congress?), so obviously, the Articles of Confederation weren't written yet, either. Therefore, technically, the colonies weren't even the U.S. at that time. No U.S., no president of said U.S.
EDIT: But now that I think about it, if the U.S. (technically) came to be when the Articles were ratified...who was the president during that time? ...I'm kinda lazy to look right now, especially since I should be asleep at this time.