Are school students being taught what they need for their futures?
Debate Rounds (3)
In a world that is constantly changing time and time again due to the introduction of new technology, an example being the new apple iPhone, it is important to define what a "need" for the future is.
This side of the house believes that a "need" in the context of a school student is a skill that will help the student cope in the real world upon leaving school. I believe that students are being taught this skill which i define as ADAPTABILITY.
Schools have realized that the old "1 + 1 = 11" ;) system is of little use and pertinence to our students. What is necessary is the introduction of computer systems into school to allow students to explore this technology and question it. There is a greater emphasis on allowing the children free roam on these systems.
The new world is undoubtedly more logic driven. Through research, multiple workshops have been developed to be specific to this area and any other are of need for the student.
Many young students are creating applications and starting up successful businesses at such young ages. This wasn't as easy and as common an achievement in the older generations. This is testimony to the fact that not only do students have skills for after school, they're already showing theses skills during school.
It is not fair to use the almost blanket term "students" along with lack of skill for the future. One must acknowledge that some students just aren't suited for the multi million dollar American dream lives that society views as success. The education system cater for such students through the use of technicon colleges for those aren't for the office scene.
The education system is not dishing success to students but is giving them skills and knowledge to succeed in any situation if they so please to. the foundation is set and the burden is on the student and the question is that, is the student using the skills in his pr her arsenal.
Upon research, I have found that many adults agree that what is important to possess in the world of work is the ability to co-operate and communicate effectively with others, a basic knowledge of mathematical calculations, and the abilities to read and write competently. Why then, are school students being taught algebraic equations, or being tested on their capability to anaylze a poem?
Are you complaining about technology over equipping our students? I ask what in your opinion is the right amount of skills for the outside world?
Algebraic skills and the analysis of poems teaches reasoning skills which will allow students to fit into any situation that they'll be presented in the real world. Communication skills are not taught through theory at school, but are taught through peer to peer interaction and Algebra and the likes are the highest level of mathematical skills.
I challenge your skill requirement list as I think that those are requirements of now and not the future.
There is no set way to prepare students for a set future as the world constantly changes. Teach them to adapt
megan18613 forfeited this round.
odi forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con asks a lot of good questions, but never establishes a case that fits the resolution. Pro doesn't have to show that school students are being taught everything they need to know, just that schools are teaching things that are necessary for their futures. Pro manages that easily. Even if I was going based off teaching all of the necessities, Con doesn't establish that any of them are not taught by the school system, instead just presenting a couple of examples of what she thinks are spurious classes. Con needed to establish, at the very least, that there was a dearth that needed filling. Without that, Pro wins this convincingly.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.