Wow, thanks for the detailed reply. It was an interesting read, as I hadn't thought about things that way at all. Looking back, my bias is quite evident in my previous post. Admittedly, my indifference for subjects such as math, social studies, and science is pretty obvious. I had always disliked them the most because I always thought they weren't necessary, and that I wouldn't need them in the future. I see that's a flaw in thinking on my part, haha. You definitely gave me something to re-evaluate. I overlooked the fact that multiple things (including the school subjects being taught today) contribute to an individual's potential, as you pointed out.
As for catering to career prospects, my main opinion is "let students learn things they're passionate about too, on a similar scale as students are expected to know the main subjects". So I immediately thought "cater to careers", because naturally students will want to pursue something that they can get easily immersed in.
Needless to say, I really could've worded this better, haha.
So I think schools should be more flexible in terms of the subjects being taught, and promote more creativity. Every education system has the same hierarchy of subjects, for example. At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities, and at the bottom is... everything else. So there aren't many education systems, if any at all, that teach things like dance, theater, programming, etc the same way students are taught subjects like math. Why? How can people determine which subjects are more important than others, and which ones are the most enriching? Of course, the subjects in the current curriculum are pretty important, but so are other possible subjects that are often overlooked in favor of the major ones, even though they contribute to any individual's overall potential as well. The task should be to educate a student's entire being, so they can face the future, and I don't think this is achieved simply by testing them on subjects related to one idea of academic ability for the majority of their school life.
So yeah, just my 2 cents. Hope I didn't go too off-topic :-x
I do agree with you for the most part, and I don't know how the Canadian education system is, but the US school system doesn't really do any of that unfortunately, at least in my experience and from what else I've heard.
My experience in the local district school board is as follows. In high school some of your courses are mandatory and others are electives - and the number of mandatory courses decreases with each grade. In our system we take 8 courses a year.
In Grade 9 you must take English, Math, French (because bilingual Canada), Science, Health & Phys. Ed, Geography, and an Arts course - leaving only one elective.
In Grade 10 you must take English, Math, Science, History and two half-courses - Civics and Career Studies, leaving three electives.
In Grade 11 you must take English and Math, and in Grade 12 only English is necessary.
In addition to these requirements you also need one more credit from each of these 3 groups: social sciences and humanities (includes language courses, philosophy, law, anthro etc.), business and arts, and science and tech. These can be taken in any year.
I think it's a good balance because much of the breadth of mandatory courses are taken in the first two grades of high school, meaning that they don't need to be studied at such a high level and they won't affect your grades in 11 and 12, which are far more important. English is that one course that you have to take to grade 12 to be a literate, critical thinking citizen. Studying Math until Grade 11 is also a good balance - it teaches you important skills, but it's also true that most people don't need further study in that department. Also, having mandatory course groups requires the student to be well-rounded, but allows them the benefit of choosing what they want to study and at what level. For example, you might not be a science person, so you can pick workshop courses and learn how to use machines or work on cars. You might be sick of language courses and are passionate about global issues so you take the course on world issues instead of creative writing.
I agree that students should learn what they're passionate about, but I don't think they should have complete control over their curriculum because we want people to be well-rounded to an extent. Students are also assessed in terms of their 1) knowledge and understanding, 2) thinking and investigation (problem-solving), 3) communication, and 4) application to other, maybe outside-of-classroom contexts. The teachers, at least in my experience, make the mark breakdown very clear so you're constantly aware of developing your aptitudes in all 4 fields. One way or another, you will be assessed in all four categories, whether through exams, assignments (generally where a lot of assessment of application takes place, or presentations (a big source for communication assessments). I think this is also part of the system that encourages a well-rounded education that doesn't place the entire focus of education on knowledge and facts, instead emphasizing your ability to think critically and solve problems, communicate, and apply the stuff you're learning to the big wide world.
I'm not sure how the US system works, so I can't comment on that. I do know that each state has some leeway in setting standards and approaches, and each school board to some extent beyond that. I would be surprised if they didn't assess students in those four categories, though, because they seem essential to building, well, essential skills as well as a well-rounded understanding of the material being taught.
It's also such a shame that bullying is so significant in so many student's lives. Everybody knows that enjoying an activity makes it easier, and disliking an activity makes it harder. Bullying, in this way, is incredibly stupid because it has nothing to do with learning or understanding! and yet it undeservedly impacts students' academic performance.
I wanted to post a dissenting opinion because I felt that nobody should read this thread and have a poorer opinion of school because of it. That would be perverse - while we should criticize the schooling institution and the school system where appropriate, that shouldn't negatively impact our impression of it to the point that we're less motivated to do well. I truly feel that if you read enough opinions on how school is useless or miserable or difficult, you will become less motivated. We're social creatures, we can't help being affected by others' opinions. But hate it or love it, it's important that you give your all in school and do the best you can, because how you do on your education will set you up for success or failure later in life.
I could go on about how motivation and the effort you put in is to an extent independent of how well you do and therefore should be valued for its own sake, but that could be another post.