The Instigator
MelodyPowers645
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MikeTheGOd
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

High School should be terminated and replaced with an alternative.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 433 times Debate No: 84926
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

MelodyPowers645

Pro

Hello, welcome to my debate. First round will be acceptance only. If you choose to participate in this debate, you will be arguing that High School should remain exactly the way that it is, and that there should be NO changes to the education system. This is not meant to be a competitive debate; I am just looking for someone to help me refine my new education system that I have come up with, and point out the problems with it. Best of Luck!
MikeTheGOd

Con

I accept and will help to yeah point out maybe some flaws in the proposed system and state why I think highschool is fine
Debate Round No. 1
MelodyPowers645

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate, and best of luck to you.

I believe that the High school system should be terminated and replaced with an alternative- my alternative. The system begins when a student first enters school. Grades 1-8 will be taught with the Classical method, meaning that rather than having separate "subjects", students will learn from different classic pieces of literature. Learning will be incorporated together and used accordingly. For instance, a student in 7th grade might read a historical fiction book about the founding of America. They would also learn the history behind the founding of America, and write an essay about a relevant topic. Lessons in math and science can be pulled from the literature. Learning in this way is also more accelerated, so the material covered in grades 1-8 would also cover some of what high school used to cover. Not all of it, though. Specialized learning in any subject, such as Calculus or Chemistry will be saved for college.
The four years that students would have been spending in high school would instead be spent in internships in whatever career they are interested in. Some students may choose to enter the military or skip ahead to a trade school. Those wishing to attend a four year college, however, would be required to participate in four years of internships at any company. This brings me to my first argument- how are students supposed to decide what job they want to do when they have absolutely no experience? I guarantee there would be less switching of majors with this system. Companies who choose to participate in this system would be subsidized by the government using whatever money used to go to high schools, but most likely less. The rest would come from a minimal fee each student would have to pay to enter, sort of like a tuition. In certain situations, when the student begins doing more work for the company and learning less (the internship would consist of working for the company, some related classes/seminars, and experiencing the atmosphere of what it is like to work there), the internship may become paid. This depends on the company just like college internships, and the paid ones might cost a little more at the beginning.
After this four year internship, a student would then go to the college of their choice. Core classes would be removed, and replaced with additional learning in the subject that they have chosen to major in, during the first year. For instance, a student who chose a science related course would need to take some classes such as Chemistry and Anatomy, but other core classes would be eliminated. If a student feels that they need a certain class, they can choose to take it as an elective.

I believe that this system is better than the current one for these reasons:

1. It eliminates indecision regarding career choice- instead of sitting in a building learning stuff we don't need, students can be out there experiencing the real world, and possibly earning some money!
2. Education is so dumbed-down these days, even in honors classes the curriculum is so slow. Students would learn to think for themselves, to learn fast, and be more experienced in the real world.
3. It would help students learn what it is like to live in the real world. There would be less getting-out-of-college-shock.
4. Unnecessary classes would no longer exist. Each student's education would be tailored to fit them. I understand that a student needs to be balanced, but this has gone too far when we are being forced to pay for unnecessary classes even in college.
MikeTheGOd

Con

Observation: Since my opponent mainly wants help or someone to point out flaws in his system that's all I will do in this round. Later I will promote current high school more and how it can be changed here and there to resolve some issues.



His first statement
I believe that the High school system should be terminated and replaced with an alternative- my alternative. The system begins when a student first enters school. Grades 1-8 will be taught with the Classical method, meaning that rather than having separate "subjects", students will learn from different classic pieces of literature. Learning will be incorporated together and used accordingly. For instance, a student in 7th grade might read a historical fiction book about the founding of America. They would also learn the history behind the founding of America, and write an essay about a relevant topic. Lessons in math and science can be pulled from the literature.

Obsevation: You are only replacing highschool as the resolution suggest so I am wondering if i should address this or not however i will just becuase i see how this would help transition into the highschool alternative.

My response: Is this middle school proposaleven needed/ can it work?
Classical books are extremely hard to read, also i feel like this plays in with what we are doing too curriculum anyway, increasing standards. The current system in place is already making school harder. http://www.theguardian.com...; More reading is already being pushed without an alternative system, I mean can't we simply buy more classical books and push them on middle age kids? This suggestion isn't inherently unique at all to your plan. Also another flaw in your alternative for middle schoolers is that you suggest we can learn math and science from literature and that type of argument will require some support. I basicually would like more support on how we an acquire math and scince knowledge from books rather then practice and application as it is done now in middle schools. Also the pass rate in middle school is high so my other question is would getting kids to read on math and scince rather then work on worksheets and practice it every day by solving problems lower the passing rate?Next I don't see why different subjects can't be kept, not only do different subjects help kids know the components of each but it helps kids figure out what they are good at. I would like a bit more information on how you plan on manifesting a centralized learning system without any divisions and more importantly why this is needed.


Next part of your statement "Learning in this way is also more accelerated, so the material covered in grades 1-8 would also cover some of what high school used to cover. Not all of it, though."

Response: I compete on a debate team and whenever someone proposes soemthing on a event that requires some sort of policy or bill or whatever to be proposed the best ones are specific and let you know what they suggest. I feel like if you are proposing any sort of policy or alternative to national education you need to at least be more specific in important areas. Now I am not saying be specific everywhere there's only a certian amount of characters but what i mean is show what parts of highschool or what classes or subjects will be covered in middle school.

My opponent states: "The four years that students would have been spending in high school would instead be spent in internships in whatever career they are interested in. Some students may choose to enter the military or skip ahead to a trade school. Those wishing to attend a four year college, however, would be required to participate in four years of internships at any company."

My response: This would only increase the preponderance of kids going into collage without knowing what they want to do. The problem is a lot of kids including myself don't know what they want to be in 9th grade or when the are only 13-14 years old. Also again you don't elaborate on why we need to do this. Why do we need to eliminate high school in order to provide the alternative to go to trade school or skip to military, can't we simply just add this option to the school system as it is? Also according too according to http://mentalhealthdaily.com...... the brain is fully developed at the age of 20 so I wonder is it good to have 13-14 year olds making career choices? Another thing your proposal doesn't address is athletes, I mean without high school what alternative will you provide for basketball players and football players to prepare for collage sports? Will you have to establish a sort of 13-18 year old league and if so can we afford it?

You then make this statement "I guarantee there would be less switching of majors." But then my question is will there be a lot of switches or internships, and if they are restricted to an internship for a company will they be coerced into something they end up not liking.

Clarification: Isn't this simply continuing the "habit loop" of changing but replacing the routine?

For example the typical Cue in changing a major is that you realize you don't like what you are doing. The routine is you change your major and then the reward is either you find what you want to do or you continue doing this.

With your alternative it will be something like this. Cue= I don't like what I am doing. routine= You are changing to a new internship rather then a new major. The result/reward is the same either you find a internship you like an you have to start over.. or you drop out again and continue the process. I feel like you aren't fixing the switching issue you are simply having kids go through this issue earlier in there lives. Also as a kid you lack the ability to make choices because the cortex of your brain is still being developed but also kids will no consider the same things to look to as teens. When you are a kid you don't realize it's not only important to look to the "fun" occupation but also the one with the most opportunities. Kids will not go to something like this http://www.payscale.com... like someone who's older and more knowledgeable will.

Conclusion: It appears the switching issue will actually increase since kids will lack the ability to make the proper choices. I just feel like there still isn't a need for your alternative at least in this area. Next you can't guarantee people not switching majors since the collage system will still be in place. "After this four year internship, a student would then go to the college of their choice." I just feel like a guarantee needs some crazy analytics.

Question for you: Why have kids going 4 years without school to start it up 4 years later? Next for subjects like Math will teens have to spend more years in collage to take courses like algerbra or algerbra 2 or geometry or enlgis etc. that could have been completed in highschool? Sure they will not have to take these courses but lets say a teen wants to go into the popular STEM area (which will happen) will they have to spend more time in school and more money for not having highschool?



Core classes would be removed

Response: this I agree with 100% but my question is again one I have been restating over and over, why is your alternative a necessity to resolve this issue? Since "core classes" are simply classes required to be taken why can't we simply just not require kids to take those classes while keeping the same system? I just feel like this doesn't help promote your alternative or address the resolution. Lastly you claim education is dumbed down but isn't the recent "national curriculum" that's being established literarily increasing standards? Isn't it getting even harder to get into IV league universities like Harvard or Princeton? In conclusion, the major flaw overall is the need of this alternative.
Debate Round No. 2
MelodyPowers645

Pro

You have made many good points, and I will do my best to clarify. I couldn't quote your entire statements because of the character limit.

Your statement: "You are only replacing highschool as the resolution suggest so I am wondering if i should address this or not however i will just becuase i see how this would help transition into the highschool alternative. Is this middle school proposaleven needed/ can it work? ..... I would like a bit more information on how you plan on manifesting a centralized learning system without any divisions and more importantly why this is needed."

My Response: Yes, I am replacing High school as the resolution, but for my system to work there must be reforms before/after high school. Many schools operate on a Classical learning style and it is incredibly fast paced. From Kindergarten up, students are forced to work and think for themselves. I only attended a classical school in Kindergarten and half of first grade, but I remember being way ahead of the other kids because of my roots in classical learning. Yes, the classical system already works around the world. The modernized version does include subjects, but I am proposing that we revert back to the original classical system.
Your link brought me to a "cannot display" page so I can not check out and discuss your source.
I acknowledge that my suggestion is in no way unique to my plan- I simply propose to use an already in place system, with some changes, mainly the internships.
You asked how math and science can be learned from literature. Take the book "Fever 1793" by Laurie Halse Anderson. From this book lessons in biology about the Yellow fever and other diseases can be pulled. The point is that kids learn that every subject can correlate to another. Taking lessons from books would not eliminate practice sheets. The only difference would be that the lessons would be pulled from literature. Technically there would still be "subjects", but they would just be melded together and taken from one another.

Your Statement: "I compete on a debate team and whenever someone proposes soemthing on a event that requires some sort of policy or bill or whatever to be proposed the best ones are specific and let you know what they suggest. I feel like if you are proposing any sort of policy or alternative to national education you need to at least be more specific in important areas. Now I am not saying be specific everywhere there's only a certian amount of characters but what i mean is show what parts of highschool or what classes or subjects will be covered in middle school."

My Response: You are right- I should have been more specific. Just as cirriculums are different based on schools, exact subjects covered may vary. The point of Grammar school (grades 1-8) is to complete basic core classes.

Your Statement: "This would only increase the preponderance of kids going into collage without knowing what they want to do. The problem is a lot of kids including myself don't know what they want to be in 9th grade or when the are only 13-14 years old. Also again you don't elaborate on why we need to do this. Why do we need to eliminate high school in order to provide the alternative to go to trade school or skip to military, can't we simply just add this option to the school system as it is? Also according too according to http://mentalhealthdaily.com......... the brain is fully developed at the age of 20 so I wonder is it good to have 13-14 year olds making career choices? Another thing your proposal doesn't address is athletes, I mean without high school what alternative will you provide for basketball players and football players to prepare for collage sports? Will you have to establish a sort of 13-18 year old league and if so can we afford it?"

My Response: I disagree. The point of the internships is to discover what you want to be! Instead of sitting in a room learning things we don't need we would get to experience real world life. Yes, there would be switching of internships, but that is meant to replace switching majors so students would be able to get in and out of college as quickly as possible. The beginning years of internship are not "career" choices as you propose, but they are simply tools that an 18 year old going into college would use to help choose his major.
My system is about education, not athleticism. Honestly I don't think sports are very important ( I mean, what about the arts, you didn't mention them) but for the people that do, there are church leagues and other teams to join. With the abolition of high school, there would be a higher demand for teams. Of course we can afford it- these teams would not be subsidized by the government; if you want to play you have to pay a fee.

In regards to your clarification: I don't see anything wrong with changing the routine, if there are things to be changed. The result/reward of changing internships is different than changing majors, because going into college knowing what you want to do will minimize college time.

In regards to your conclusion: No, we can't force kids not to switch majors, but as a result of the internships they will know what they want and will be infinitely less likely to switch. I only guaranteed that there would be less. Also, I disagree with you that teens 14-18 are unable to make decisions. Just because our brains are not "fully developed" does not mean we are incapable of thinking correctly. Besides, the choice of what internship you want to take is not life changing. The internships are simply ways for a student to see what a prospective job atmosphere would be like. The more important decisions would come in college, and I believe the internships will leave students better prepared for that decision.

My answer to your Question: Good point. However, since colleges will now be specialized, you would only take the classes you need. Say you take an English major. There would be no need to take Algebra 2, Calculus, Chemistry, etc. The student would concentrate on Liberal Arts classes. Also, the internship (based on what you take) would include some classes that are relevant to the job. For subjects that would be harder to pick up such as math, it would be the student's job to maintain their current knowledge in these areas instead of homework- but not new knowledge, just what they already learned. In a classical education, in 8th grade Students are usually learning Algebra or Geometry, so that is the knowledge level they should have on a core basis. I believe there is no need to go any higher unless one is majoring in math.

Regarding your response to core classes should be removed: My new system does involve fixing the issue with core classes, but you are right, my alternative has little to do with core classes alone. The alternative addresses this problem: students are sitting in rooms learning things they won't need (core classes) instead of experiencing what working in the real world is like. Then they are expected to know what they want to do? Even in college, you still have no idea what your prospective job would be like, hence all the indecision.

Regarding common core: I am assuming the "national curriculum" you referenced is common core. I believe that this is not the solution to the problem, rather it will only make the problem worse. If you want to, check out these references that explain why I believe common core is harmful to society.

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
http://www.freedomworks.org...
MikeTheGOd

Con

I like his responses alot and will address them.
His Response to my 1st Response: Yes, I am replacing High school as the resolution, but for my system to work there must be reforms before/after high school. Many schools operate on a Classical learning style and it is incredibly fast paced.
My resopnse: I looked up this system and there are some core flaws i would like to point out about it.
1. old fashioned and will fail to appeal to people and educaters
For examlpe on this websitehttp://www.welltrainedmind.com... it states this, "learning is accomplished through words, written and spoken, rather than through images (pictures, videos, and television)." In a country where visual learning is becomeing a prefered style and where technology plays a big part i just don't see how you can convince overseers of education itself to "downgrade" education. Sure this method could help with critical thinking, this method includes philosophy and logic however it doesn't really go well with the techonoligical era. Also through this classical learning style you read books like the Odyssey. I raised this question earlier that hasn't been answered yet, how will you make this proposal attractive to not only the legislaters and heads of education but the American children. The market for classical education is elsewhere as you pointed out, it's not here in America and this method cannot create it.
2. America is considerably different from the rest of the world
I mean you mention how this learning style works around the world but lets take Great Britian for a example, Britian actully sees subjects as Philosophy as a intrinsic thing to society. Britian really embraces the arts, Britian is the total opposite of America. America doesn't value liberal arts or classical books. The market for this particular classic area doesn't exist. Maybe some time in the future when my baby sister gets into highschool Americans will finnaly realize critical thinking is essential, but this plan will not do it.
3. Classical education relating to Christian based Education
I am reading more on classical education and it seems to lead towards Christianity. What i am wondering is how can this be applicable in a country where agonistic and athiest based thinking is becoming more common. I mean highschool keeps peoples personal beliefs from being touched on while this method would coerce people towards one direction.
My opponents next statement :You asked how math and science can be learned from literature. Take the book "Fever 1793" by Laurie Halse Anderson.
Response:

But math is more effective as a step by step process. It's better to go in order from 2+2 to complex systems. It's better to learn equations and utilize them in order to prepare for fields that we have now such as engineering. It's more easier to visuailize a diagram or math equation utilized then try to picture it from a book. Another thing to consider is that books are no longer the primary tool utilized to dissaminate information. It's time to move on.
Next part of my opponents argument
The point of the internships is to discover what you want to be! Yes, there would be switching of internships, but that is meant to replace switching majors Also, I disagree with you that teens 14-18 are unable to make decisions. Just because our brains are not "fully developed" does not mean we are incapable of thinking correctly. Besides, the choice of what internship you want to take is not life changing. The internships are simply ways for a student to see what a prospective job atmosphere would be like. The more important decisions would come in college, and I believe the internships will leave students better prepared for that decision.
Response to all of this: First of all my opponeont concedes that yes switching will still be an issue. Next my oppoonent doesn't show why his alternative is needed here. Anyone can go into a intership before collage.... also we can simply lower the age requirement for internships to allow students to enter them at a lower age. My opponoent hasn't established why interships are so great and why they should replace 4 years of schooling. Sure they introduce you to jobs but you miss out on practical skills you could develop and gain from highschool. Next I never stated kids can't make descisions at a lower age just that their ability to judge isn't fully developed. It's one of the big arguments used against lowering the drinking age to 13, or allowing adolescents to make medical choices. It's a proven fact. In conclusion there is no reason to abolish highschool to spend more time on internships.
My opponeont then states this "There would be no need to take Algebra 2, Calculus, Chemistry, etc. The student would concentrate on Liberal Arts classes. Also, the internship (based on what you take) would include some classes that are relevant to the job. For subjects that would be harder to pick up such as math, it would be the student's job to maintain their current knowledge in these areas"
Response: My opponeonts proposal would support an area that is terrible for jobs and Americans don't care about. Alsohaving each indivudail learn math on his own wouldn't work bcause each child would study different areas of math. Certian fields require certian areas of math, it would be hard to ensure kids have a common organized knowledge of math if math becomes a self based activity. Also why make liberal arts a big focus, why not make it an on your own activity since collage is an "invesment" and this area tends to be a poor investment. Why not support math all the way with highschool since it is a proven field that gives you job oppurtunuties? Why fund "enlightment fields"?
Another statement
Honestly I don't think sports are very important ( I mean, what about the arts, you didn't mention them) but for the people that do, there are church leagues and other teams to join. With the abolition of high school, there would be a higher demand for teams. Of course we can afford it- these teams would not be subsidized by the government; if you want to play you have to pay a fee.
Response: You ask why i don't mention the arts but lets face it, no one values the arts in America. And lets face it again, sports have a higher demand then Black history degrees and philosophy. Next there's a bigger problem with removing highschool teams. It makes it harder for collages to discover athletes that we can watch on collage games and NBA games. Lets face it, the NBA is a huge company in America, lets face it the NFL is a huge company and demanded station in America. If you eliminate highschool teams where tryouts are required and talent is easy to find since only good or decent players are on the teams, then it will be harder to provide talent for the NBA and NFL. Also you mention side leaques but trust me dude those are the easy. Anyone can get in if they are willing to pay. I play on a highschool team and the compeition is real, also agian the best players in the country are easily recgonized and found through highschools due to a organized stat keeping system. I am sorry but the typical American will say sports>arts>classical books. This raises another challenge that i mentioned earlier, how will you manifest the market to take interest in this type of education? If you can't do that this will not work anyway.
Core curriculum= I am waiting for my opponeont to explain why we simply can't reform the system or remove "core" and let students choose classes wihout implementing this alternative.
National curriculm= I am not advicating for it i am just suggesting that isn't national curriculum making education harder? I simply used it as a response to your claim that education is preety easy. I am just saying if that was so there would be a overflow of students in IV leaque Universities. Also standerdized testing from what is extremely hard and long. I would say education continues to get harder.
Debate Round No. 3
MelodyPowers645

Pro

Your responses were good and I will do my best to address them.

In regards to your first response, the core flaws of a classical education:
1) Education was never meant to appeal to people; it is just something you have to do. Visual learning causes nothing but distractions- the teachers at my school have to work so hard to get all the students to put down their i pads and listen to the lesson. In a world where people are connected to their phones at the hip, it would be nothing but beneficial to force students to function without them for part of their day.
I am not proposing to make this a forced nationwide method like common core, just to make it a valid option for certain schools.
Does education really need to be attractive to American children? I don't think it does, and the problems that come with incorporating electronics are more trouble than they are worth.
2) I find the lack of interest in the arts in America to be a problem that needs to be fixed, not something that should limit our education. As you said "America doesn't value liberal arts or classic books". We need to change that! Society has been so dumbed down to the point where we don't know anything about the arts or the classics, and everything is all about pop icons and sports. Yes, sports do have a place in society but it should not displace other important aspects like the arts.
3) I go to a Christian school so I never really took the Christian based education to be a problem. But you are right, others that follow different religions may have a problem with this. But really, how is this any different than teaching Evolution as a fact when we all know that is anti-Christian? The classical education would have to be modernized to a certain extent (I wouldn't have a problem with showing pictures or movies, just let's avoid all the students bringing their devices to school) but it is the fast paced learning style and the emphasis on classical literature that is my main concern.

In regards to learning math from literature: Yes, it is best to do it that way, and that is the way it would be done. The only difference is that the lessons would have something to do with the literature. It does not even have to be the one book that is being read; the point of not separating the subjects is so students could see that when put together, basic learning is important in real life.

In regards to your response about internships: The reason we need internships is so that the student will know what the job they are majoring in is like. How am I supposed to know if I want to be a doctor if I don't know what being a doctor is like? The point of the four years in internships is:
a. to experience life with a career
b. to learn about the job you think you want
c. to learn basic knowledge of how to do the job you want

The problem with simply lowering the age for internships is that a student does not have time to be a full time student, try to maintain a part time job, possibly play an oh-so-beloved-sport, AND have an internship! Of course not! My system allows a student to, instead of wasting their time on classes they do not need, learn about the job they think they want. What practical skills do you get from high school anyway? Switching is not an issue here- it's not like choosing to intern at a hospital will make you a doctor for life. Whereas switching majors can mess up your whole schedule and cause you to have taken classes you don't need.

In regards to your statement about math: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you meant when you said "My opponeonts proposal would support an area that is terrible for jobs and Americans don't care about." Could you clarify? As for the rest of the response, I don't think this is a problem unique to my system. For instance, some schools will teach their students Advanced Models and Functioning, while others go to PreCalculus. Math was not a self-based activity, I was never proposing that the student teach themselves Algebra or learn new concepts; just that they ensure that they know what they already have learned. They won't even need to know Math if they choose to major in English.

In regards to your statement about sports and arts: You have stated a problem with American culture that does need to be fixed- our disinterest with the arts. I believe an education incorporating the arts will help foster more interest. As for colleges finding athletes, here is how that would work:
- Some side leagues would become more competitive and serious (Many schools do not have orchestras, hence the development of prestigious youth orchestras that are hard to get in to)
- A student would get in to the team and practice the sport
- A student would apply for a college
- The student would include their sports knowledge and what team they were on.
- The college now knows about the sports and can ask the student to try out if it wishes.

In regards to core curriculum: I'm sorry, I forgot to address that. My question about this is what kinds of classes could possibly benefit a student more than firsthand experience on the job? We (as a country) have seem to have forgotten this, but the whole point of education is to prepare you for a job.

In regards to National Curriculum: Yes, common core is making education harder, but not in the right way. A classical education is hard because it is fast paced and focuses on higher levels of literature. Common core is hard because concepts like math are taught in weird ways that are hard to understand.
MikeTheGOd

Con

Question raised by him i will address
"My opponeonts proposal would support an area that is terrible for jobs and Americans don't care about." Could you clarify?
Response: Liberal arts is what i was talking about there for clarification. What i mean is if collage is for an investment rather then enlightment and Liberal arts is a poor investment as demostrated on my first link. So why concentrate in that area?
2. If you look at alot of the high paying jobs concentrateing on liberal arts isn't a great idea http://money.usnews.com...
3. I asked you how would you manifest the market for this? Not many Americans are seeking an art degree partly because of the fact that collage is as an investment. In fact the only reason why teens like msyelf will go is to have a better job then Mcdonalds not becuase we want to go. When i go to collage i will be looking for great job oppurtunuties not enlightment. I can get enlightment from the bible that i read every day or from a book on liberal arts topics like Philosophy or history or the civil rights movement or something. THe only liberal arts programs that are worth it is political science and philosophy and that's only if you go to law school or even business. People who major in Philosophy tend to get into the best law schools and business schools, and well political scince helps alot with learning law itself and of course law school.
Another statement
As for the rest of the response, I don't think this is a problem unique to my system. They won't even need to know Math if they choose to major in English.
Response: You say Math isn't needed if you major in English. I am sure me and the viewers will need statistics for such a huge claim. You don't show why we need to focus on liberal arts let alone English anyway. Why focus on anything really? Why not keep the collage system how it is? If they are willing to take risk with Liberal arts let them make that sort of risky investment. But most students don't want to focus on Liberal arts (besides political science) so how will your alternative even be accepted by educaters if they make more money off other areas of study since more people major in that? But all in all you have to prove English majors don't need Math to go into engineering or accounting or other math related fields becuase that's an insane claim. Next yes I know highschools teach precalc and such, which is what i mean by forcing students to be self learned. By eliminatng highschool and having students focus on Liberal arts they will not have this oppurtunutiy. I am not aware of any interships that allow you to learn such math related activities which is why my suggestion that your plan will lead to students being forced to learn certian math subjects on their own is correct. Lastly since there is a preponderance of students going into other fields over liberal arts why again would educaters focus on an area where there is no market base?
Thus highschool is more needed since highschool prepares kids for the investable fields rather then the non investable liberal arts fields.
I then suggest an alternative solution to internships replacing highschool and this is his response...

The problem with simply lowering the age for internships is that a student does not have time to be a full time student, try to maintain a part time job, possibly play an oh-so-beloved-sport, AND have an internship!
Response: First of all just because you don't love sports or you don't hit the gym doesn't make it not an important activity. The "oh-so-beloved-sport, and how easily you were willing to get rid of it kind of shows your not an active dude, and the fact you are willing to focus on an area that doesn't offer my job oppurtunuties and others don't want shows again selfishness. You must look at this from a utilitarian point of view or if it benifits the majority. Since the majority of people don't want liberal arts and at least watch sports if they don't play it doesn't make any sense to upset the majority.
But moving on the the main argument I have a easy solution to your claim that you can't focus on an internship and highschool. Simply give up something. Look i admit i am lucky to not have to work a job and i choose to do it during the summer because i am bored since my Dad makes 6 figures, but still most people in highschool don't need to work a part time job. Sure it helps the family out but hey if an internship focuses on your future job and its intrinsic for what you want to do put that before anything else. You can make time in highschool you just have to give up other things you are doing. Either give up the sport or give up the other job.
IN conclusion i don't see why your plan is uniqe at all, it seems like you are overllsuggestiong we simply eliminate highschool for internships that can be done during highschool if we lower age requirements or even during collage. Also just think about presenting an idea to eliminate 4 years of school for internships and imagagine the reaction the market would get. THis plan doesn't have solvency and thus i win this debate. It will never work becuase there is no market or no one is looking for it, it hurts the majority which need highschool and need other areas besides liberal arts, and educaters would not implement this at all.
In regards to your statement about sports and arts: You have stated a problem with American culture that does need to be fixed- our disinterest with the arts. I believe an education incorporating the arts will help foster more interest. As for colleges finding athletes, here is how that would work:
Response: I didn't paste the whole argument but you viewers can read it in his last argument. He simply states he "believes" incorporating the arts will foster more interest. The problem with this is this is purley anecdotal information, it's not reliable and based off what you believe. You are claiming you can convince America to be interested in Plato and Pablo Piccaso but you don't show how. ALso yo don't show why the arts is a good investment. Since collage is an investment art needs to be a bette investment then other areas to actully foster even a little interest. Art also needs to be more entertaining to the public then sports for people to embrace the arts more then sports. Because you haven't shown me any infromation or statistics leading towards this happenining me and the viewers can conclude this plan will fail.
Core= If you eliminate the core required classes students have to take without your plan, they will have more time for internships. The only reason students have to take a certian number of classes is to graduate in time and fit in the core classes. Without core students can take less classes per semester and focus more on internships.
Lastly he states he is not proposing to implement this plan on a national scale just some schools.... since this wasn't specified until round 4 or in his rules and his plan suggestion extremes such as replacing highschool he's either sugesting this becuase he concedes to the fact the market isn't ready or this plan is still poorly structured . Next your resolution didn't specifiy this would simply be an option in like 3 schools or soemthing. You didn't specificy this in rules either that thi is simply an option a few schools might choose or soemthing. If i knew that i wouldn't have debated this and you didn't clearly show this was your thing until round 4 thus the debate that this is a national plan must be continued. It's not fair for me at all becuase you never mentioned this until round 4 or made it clear this was a small baby plan that barley anyone would know about or care about. Education systems that are small don't impact anyone.
And he assumes when i state visual I mean ipads, sure that can be included as well but visual learning is diagrams and equations demostrated on the board and teaching as it is done now basicually.
Debate Round No. 4
MelodyPowers645

Pro

MelodyPowers645 forfeited this round.
MikeTheGOd

Con

My opponent as you can see has forfeited the last round thus vote me for conduct.

Also in order for this time of policy to win the round he has to address the problems I present of it and he didn't for round 5 so my arguments still stand.

He tried to even change the scope of debate by claiming he wasn't advocating for a nation wide implementation but viewers if you read through the round he doesn't really push this until round 4. It seems he realized he couldn't support this being effective nationwide because of lack of market availability so he tried to change what he was advocating for.

But yes vote me because I prove his plan cannot be utilized and because of the FF.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tashasays 1 year ago
Tashasays
I feel you, Mike. So much of high school is a waste of time and could be better spent learning about possible careers. College is a little better, but not much. I have a 2-year-old now, and I'm very concerned about his future education at public school.
Posted by MelodyPowers645 1 year ago
MelodyPowers645
Yes, thank you very much. I'm glad there were no hard feelings about my omission of the final round. Oh, and by the way when I mentioned oh-so-beloved-sports in my argument, that was not meant as a sarcastic thing, though now that I look again it sounds like it. What I meant was that with how much time sports (which you had mentioned were very important, and I agree) take from a student's schedule, there is no time for unpaid internships. Sorry for the misunderstanding. You argued very well and definitely gave me some things to consider.
Posted by MikeTheGOd 1 year ago
MikeTheGOd
and yeah good debate I agree with a lot of your plan but in debate you can't really concede. Overall I think this plan is great and I don't really enjoy high school that much and a lot of it isn't needed however I was just defending my side and challenging you and trying to help you fix the plan.

IN real debate I have to debate both sides including the side I don't like so it makes it seem like I don't value your side at all but I really do. THe plan is nicely thought out just some clarification issues and some spots that can be fixed.
Posted by MikeTheGOd 1 year ago
MikeTheGOd
oh crap my bad
Posted by MelodyPowers645 1 year ago
MelodyPowers645
I am so sorry I forfeited the last round! I was working from 4:30 to midnight last night, then I was out all day today and I just got home. I guess I timed out. Your points were good and I enjoyed this debate with you. Sorry for not clarifying the national thing with you- I spend so much time thinking about it I just assumed I had included that in my first argument. I definitely learned that it needs more revising, but I still think a student will benefit more from first hand job experience than they will from Chemistry class. Thanks for a great debate.
Posted by MikeTheGOd 1 year ago
MikeTheGOd
K I will consider accepting I get it now
Posted by MelodyPowers645 1 year ago
MelodyPowers645
I didn't want this to turn into a debate where we are arguing "Should the current High school system be reformed?" I want to debate "Should the current High school system be terminated and replaced with an alternative."
Posted by MelodyPowers645 1 year ago
MelodyPowers645
Pro must argue that the high school system should be terminated and replaced with an alternative. Con should argue that high school is fine the way it is, and does not need to be changed. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Posted by MikeTheGOd 1 year ago
MikeTheGOd
Also I feel like the opposing side should be able to advocate some changes in the highschool system or changes can be implemented. I mean high schools get updates and new teaching methods and tools are introduced I don't see why you are restricting that
Posted by MikeTheGOd 1 year ago
MikeTheGOd
So it seems like your making the pro have a lot of options. To me the pro should just be providing an alternative but it sounds like based off your round 1 pro can simply reform the highschool system. So which one is it?
No votes have been placed for this debate.