Redefining Rigor: The Evolving Challenge of Modern Education

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Do you recommend reading the books you mentioned?

@ZeusAres42

I think I need a break from the forums and I want to read instead.

I also posted a similar topic. The education system is failing no wonder employers won't hire college graduates and they need to go through years of unpaid internships first.

https://debateisland.com/discussion/9193/how-valuable-is-a-college-education-for-most-people

JulesKorngold

I agree with the statement that the goal of academic rigor is to produce well-rounded, critical-thinking individuals prepared to face the challenges of their times. I also agree that addressing the crisis in academic rigor demands a holistic reconsideration of our pedagogical approaches, curricula, and assessment tools.

There are many different ways to define academic rigor, but I believe that it is ultimately about challenging students to think critically and creatively, to solve problems, and to communicate effectively. It is about helping students develop the skills and knowledge they need to be successful in college, in their careers, and in life.

The crisis in academic rigor is real. In recent years, there has been a decline in the quality of education in many countries. This is due to a number of factors, including standardized testing, increased emphasis on test prep, and a focus on teaching to the test.

To address this crisis, we need to rethink our approach to education. We need to focus on teaching students the skills they need to succeed, not just on teaching them to pass tests. We need to give students more opportunities to think critically and creatively, and we need to assess their learning in a more holistic way.

We also need to make sure that all students have access to a rigorous education, regardless of their background or circumstances. This means providing more funding for schools in low-income areas and ensuring that all teachers are well-trained and qualified.

I believe that it is possible to address the crisis in academic rigor and to provide all students with a rigorous education that truly equips them for the future. It will take a concerted effort from educators, policymakers, and parents, but it is a goal that is worth striving for.

Here are some specific steps that can be taken to address the crisis in academic rigor:

• Rethink the way we teach and assess students. We need to move away from a focus on standardized testing and towards a more holistic approach to assessment that measures students' skills and knowledge in a variety of ways.
• Provide more opportunities for students to think critically and creatively. This can be done through projects, problem-based learning, and other active learning strategies.
• Make sure all students have access to a rigorous education. This means providing more funding for schools in low-income areas and ensuring that all teachers are well-trained and qualified.
• Work with parents and community members to support academic rigor. Parents and community members can play a key role in supporting academic rigor by encouraging their children to read, do homework, and participate in extracurricular activities.

I believe that by taking these steps, we can address the crisis in academic rigor and provide all students with the education they need to succeed.

Dee

In conclusion, while the definition of academic rigor may vary, the goal remains the same: to produce well-rounded, critical-thinking individuals


Let's have a little look at " academic rigor" on Z's part where he puts up a solid defence of the F.D.A who approved Oxycontin which fuelled the appaling opioid crisis in the US , this a the body where the 2 principal reviewers took positions at Purdue the company that made  Oxycontin which the FDA totally approved.

Read below the words of Z who continues to call the FDA an " esteemed body " and the gold standard of excellence.

Furthermore, significant psychological treatments, like CBT have garnered endorsement from esteemed medical boards, including NICE, FDA, and others. Such recognition usually follows decades of empirical, evidence-based research.

Oxycontin was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December, 1995.


Centre for ethics

Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted

July 17, 2013

by Donald W. Light

A forthcoming article for the special issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (JLME), edited by Marc Rodwin and supported by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, presents evidence that about 90 percent of all new drugs approved by the FDA over the past 30 years are little or no more effective for patients than existing drugs.

All of them may be better than indirect measures or placebos, but most are no better for patients than previous drugs approved as better against these measures. The few superior drugs make important contributions to the growing medicine chest of effective drugs.

The bar for “safe” is equally low, and over the past 30 years, approved drugs have caused an epidemic of harmful side effects, even when properly prescribed. Every week, about 53,000 excess hospitalizations and about 2400 excess deaths occur in the United States among people taking properly prescribed drugs to be healthier. One in every five drugs approved ends up causing serious harm,1 while one in ten provide substantial benefit compared to existing, established drugs. This is the opposite of what people want or expect from the FDA.

Prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death. Deaths and hospitalizations from over-dosing, errors, or recreational drug use would increase this total. American patients also suffer from about 80 million mild side effects a year, such as aches and pains, digestive discomforts, sleepiness or mild dizziness.

What a hypocrite the  FDA is the body Z claims exercises" rigor and stringency" and does "decades of empirical,  evidence-based research"the self same FDA that approved a drug that has killed 200,000 Americans , when you hear apologists like Z praise the FDA and mock those who point out the carmage they have caused  you realise you are talking to a raging hypocrite who does and acts in the complete opposite way he claims others should act.

ZeusAres42

@Dreamer

If you're thinking of taking a break and hitting some books, the ones I mentioned are definitely worth a shot. I also Saw your post about the education system a while back. I might have commented on it. I will review it again soon. Anyway, I think those books will defitely give you some more food for thought.

ZeusAres42

@JulesKorngold

Well, it seems that what you said complements what I wrote nicely. Your emphasis on educational equity is indeed pertinent. It is true that not all schools and students have access to equal resources, opportunities, or support, making it vital to address these disparities in the pursuit of academic excellence.

Additionally, fostering a love for lifelong learning should be a cornerstone in bolstering rigor. When students are intrinsically motivated, they are more likely to challenge themselves, continuously seek knowledge, and retain curiosity beyond the classroom. 

Dee

@ZeusAres42

ZeusAres 42 said........

Furthermore, significant psychological treatments, like CBT have garnered endorsement from esteemed medical boards, including NICE, FDA, and others. Such recognition usually follows decades of empirical, evidence-based research......

A prine example of Z's idea of "academic rigor....LOL 

.Oxycontin was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December, 1995.

Bogan

Here in Australia, the ticket to university education was the year 12 “Matriculation” school examinations.     Students passing the Matriculation were deemed smart enough and mature enough to handle advanced education.     Sadly, the universities in Australia had to instigate their own university entrance examinations, as too many candidate students who had received glowing marks and recommendations from teachers, were found to be unable to read, write, spell, or do simple sums.

Before being able to concentrate upon social issues, the first point to be addressed is to teach children the basics.    Unfortunately, Australian curricula are now swamped with teachers being told to implant all sorts of social issues into kid’s heads, instead of teaching the basics.    

What is worse, is the low quality of teachers today.      Teaching was once a very prestigious profession, especially for women.     At the beginning of the 19th century, nursing and teaching were about the only professions open to women, and some very smart young women entered the profession of teaching.       This became a cultural icon in old westerns, where the beautiful and   intelligent “school marm” usually won the heart of some murderous, pistol packing, serial killer cowboy hero.

Today, the profession of teaching appears to be dominated by university Artz grad types who found STEM courses too hard, so they dropped out to do a bum degree like Artz.      The only positions open to these people are in government employ, which is why they are so politically radical.    Teaching is one profession that they can get into, which results in teachers unions becoming radicalised by loony lefties.  

There may be still some intelligent young people who see teaching as a noble profession. But such people do not last long as teachers.    If their loony left workmates don’t drive them out, then the ever more badly behaved students will.      Schools today seem to be just childminding centres for parents while they go to work, and where their kids can be indoctrinated into believing in the new religion of neo Marxism combined with extreme environmentalism, and multiculturalism.

Western civilisation once strode ahead of every other civilisation because we were merit based society full of aspirational people who saw education as a way to advance.     Sadly, we just got lazy and stopped trying.     Then we started dreaming up all sorts of du-mb ideas like racial and class equality, as well as other moronic ideas like transgenderism. 

 I propose, that every child should be given an IQ test at Year 6 to see if the child has enough brains to handle advanced learning.    Special public high schools should be set up to handle such superior kids.    It is simply a waste of time and money to try and educate children with low IQ or poor maturity.       Identifying gifted students of whatever class and race is being practiced today, (on a low scale) and scholarships and bursaries are awarded to such students to encourage them.     But whilst ever we continue to think that all people are equal, and must therefore always treat people equally, we are going to continue to see western schools do poorly against Asian schools, and Asian kids outperform white and dark skinned students.   

MayCaesar

I am a strong proponent of the idea that people rise up to challenges, rather than the other way around. What I mean by that is that if you want to truly improve at something, you should find a challenge that at the moment is too much for you to overcome, set your mind to cracking it and get to work - and in the process you will be forced to get much better at it than you are now. In contrast, if you keep staying in your comfort zone and doing what you are used to do, then any learning you can do is going to be superficial and untested - you will be walking the path of the stereotypical ivory tower philosopher, someone who, on paper, has done a lot of "thinking", but in reality has been fantasizing all this time.

Suppose you want to become good at chess. If you just watch a lot of Youtube videos, buy and study a lot of books, play games with yourself and so on, you may feel like you are improving significantly - yet suddenly get obliterated on your first tournament, losing all games due to lack of experience playing against real grizzled opponents.
What you have to do is go out there and play against people who are on some metric (such as ELO) substantially better than you. When you see how poorly your current skills hold up against serious opponents, you have no other way to move forward than to find flaws in your play that they exploit and patch them up. No amount of learned theory can prepare you for that.
If you always play against opponents of your level or below, you have no reason to improve: you are performing well, after all, so what is the problem? Just keep playing games and being satisfied with the results. It is only when you start shooting above your paygrade that the desperate need to improve arises - and you will find a way to do so.

Education is no different. Want to learn serious mathematics? Open a serious undergraduate-level book on mathematical analysis, read the definition of the limit and smirk at how arcane it sounds. Now open a set of problems at the end of the chapter and find a statement that you are asked to prove... Which also sounds arcane, as does the concept of proving something rigorously. Well, now you have your work cut out for you: you cannot solve this problem with your current approach, and you have to take a pen and paper and work first on your understanding of the delta-epsilon definition of the limit. More importantly, you will discover a lot about your thinking process and how you learn best (different people learn very differently, and, say, "visual" learners require a completely different set of tools to move forward than others), and mastering something new in the future will be far easier than now.

I do not think that a system featuring "participation trophies" and "attendance credits" as the norm can get you that, by design. In this respect, I honestly prefer the school systems in Japan or South Korea, or even China (minus the whole ideological indoctrination thing) to the school systems in the US or the UK. I do not think that any of the current education systems raise kids to become independent and critically thinking individuals - however, some of the Eastern systems, at least, teach kids self-discipline and challenge seeking, while the Western systems seem to put more emphasis on students' comfort than anything else. At the very least, it might be a good idea for a Western kid to spend a couple of years in one of those countries, to get a taste of what a growth-promoting environment is like.

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

I am a strong proponent of the idea that people rise up to challenges, rather than the other way around. What I mean by that is that if you want to truly improve at something, you should find a challenge that at the moment is too much for you to overcome, set your mind to cracking it and get to work - and in the process you will be forced to get much better at it than you are now. In contrast, if you keep staying in your comfort zone and doing what you are used to do, then any learning you can do is going to be superficial and untested - you will be walking the path of the stereotypical ivory tower philosopher, someone who, on paper, has done a lot of "thinking", but in reality has been fantasizing all this time.

Suppose you want to become good at chess. If you just watch a lot of Youtube videos, buy and study a lot of books, play games with yourself and so on, you may feel like you are improving significantly - yet suddenly get obliterated on your first tournament, losing all games due to lack of experience playing against real grizzled opponents.
What you have to do is go out there and play against people who are on some metric (such as ELO) substantially better than you. When you see how poorly your current skills hold up against serious opponents, you have no other way to move forward than to find flaws in your play that they exploit and patch them up. No amount of learned theory can prepare you for that.
If you always play against opponents of your level or below, you have no reason to improve: you are performing well, after all, so what is the problem? Just keep playing games and being satisfied with the results. It is only when you start shooting above your paygrade that the desperate need to improve arises - and you will find a way to do so.

Education is no different. Want to learn serious mathematics? Open a serious undergraduate-level book on mathematical analysis, read the definition of the limit and smirk at how arcane it sounds. Now open a set of problems at the end of the chapter and find a statement that you are asked to prove... Which also sounds arcane, as does the concept of proving something rigorously. Well, now you have your work cut out for you: you cannot solve this problem with your current approach, and you have to take a pen and paper and work first on your understanding of the delta-epsilon definition of the limit. More importantly, you will discover a lot about your thinking process and how you learn best (different people learn very differently, and, say, "visual" learners require a completely different set of tools to move forward than others), and mastering something new in the future will be far easier than now.

I do not think that a system featuring "participation trophies" and "attendance credits" as the norm can get you that, by design. In this respect, I honestly prefer the school systems in Japan or South Korea, or even China (minus the whole ideological indoctrination thing) to the school systems in the US or the UK. I do not think that any of the current education systems raise kids to become independent and critically thinking individuals - however, some of the Eastern systems, at least, teach kids self-discipline and challenge seeking, while the Western systems seem to put more emphasis on students' comfort than anything else. At the very least, it might be a good idea for a Western kid to spend a couple of years in one of those countries, to get a taste of what a growth-promoting environment is like.

A lot of what you said resonates with me. For instance, your talk about playing chess with people better than you is something I often strive to do. That is when I am in serious mode, and not just killing time and being too drunk to play properly at all hehe. I also practice Judo now, and have practiced other martial arts in the past. And I am reminded of one of my old coaches saying that when you find a parthner to train and/or spar with always try to do it with someone better than yourself; this quote has stuck with me for several years. 

As for Japan and other Asian countries as I was writing this my main focus was on the western world, I.E especially UK and USA. The example about Japan might seem somewhat anecdotal. Still, the point remains the same: to demonstrate how rote learning doesn't necessarily transcend into great problem solvers. And indeed the disucussion extends to further countries, including the likes of USA and UK which I completely agree with that one of the issues here is like you put it: "more emphasis on students' comfort than anything else." 

With this being such a multifaceted topic there is a load more I would like to add here and I may try to do so in due course, as time permits. But for now, that is my 2 cents regarding what you said.