are our schools teaching mediocraty over competetiveness?

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I think my sig says enough about how I feel about ranking. (If you never looked for the hidden meaning see below; its all about teamwork.)

To Boleslav - wise smart kids study together (i.e. cooperating) and end up being at the top. I did this in college and other schools. MY study group always scored in the top of the class, it varied which of us was #1, but as a team we were always #1. Competition and cooperation combined is key to success in the real world. Whether it be CISCO vs FOUNDRY in business or the Civilized militaries of the world vs the Terrorists, the combination of competitiveness and cooperation are critical.

 

[Akka]

Obviously I'm trying to promote the former type of competition. The latter is counter-productive.

Everyone always want to promote the good side of something.
The problem is, the bad side comes with it.

Here, I disagree. I agree with you that only those who deserve it should be allowed to continue on to higher classes, but I don't believe that ranking doesn't help. The inherent competitiveness in all animals encourages students to do well, but without ranking, they don't know how well they're doing in relation to other students. You may get mostly As, but be rank 20 of 100, which would encourage you to work harder, since you are obviously intelligent if you get good grades. Not only does it basically allow natural competitiveness go to work, but it also encourages and instills the value of hard work into students, a quality that they will need later in life and will help the economy in general.

I don't believe one word of it. If anything, ranking is probably one of the worst idea in school. Be assured that pupils WILL rank themselves without any help from anyone. The need to show off is natural to human, particularly during childhood. And don't take people for fools. Even without ranking, anyone know more or less what is his place among others.
Ranking pupils validate and gives official sanction to the idea that one is better than another, and focus on only the very best. Putting people on a pedestal because they got 0,5 points out of 20 than another, is idiotic. Glorification of the rank, focus all the attention on the number 1, and tends to disreguard others, even if they are so closely matched that the difference means nothing.

Which methods, and how?

Ranking, for first. Special rewards and glorification for the "best".
What's important is to RECOGNIZE the deeds. Recognizing that someone has make a good work. Glorification and ranking are not needed.

Competition exists in the world in general, but this is merely to ensure that it persists in education, which is very different from the real world.

Competition has little place in education. We aren't training fighters for battle. We are teaching people to give them the basic knowledge they ought to have, and also to give them the basis of social behaviour and exchange. Promoting relentless fight because everyone is only an obstacle to your road of number 1 is more anti-social than anything.
I don't want a school that teach that you have to crush others and stand upon their heads, because you're either a winner or a loser.
A bit of competition is welcome, of course, but children are already enough pushed to compete without adding any more pressure.

Obviously the tests are not perfect measures of intelligence. It would be naive to expect a perfect correlation between grades and intelligence. The tests do force the students to study, though (assuming they don't cheat). If the students are studying, then it helps them twofold: they learn more, and they get used to working hard. Please explain to me if you know of a better way of encouraging the students to learn than testing (along with some other grades, such as discussions, classwork, etc.).

I've nother better than tests in my store. Tests should exist. But they shouldn't be the end of all, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Taking into account the relativity of their meaning would be good.

Remember, intelligence is not sufficient per se. You want the workforce to be assiduous as well (the same applies to colleges looking for students).

Yeah, I know. But that's not the point. Everyone has a right to live and to be happy. There is only one number 1. There is 5 999 999 999 others. I don't want a world made only for "winners" (god I hate this word).
Learning that you're good at something, and that you should take credit for it, but that it doesn't necessarily means that you're better than the next guy who's only average as it, strikes me as much more important than turning our children into competitive machines that only seek to fight their way in an arena.

 

[Lonkut]

We've become too much touchy feely. I sure don't like all this 'liberal politicaly correct' crap.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

If anything, ranking is probably one of the worst idea in school. Be assured that pupils WILL rank themselves without any help from anyone.

The problem is kids will rank themselves based upon other things, like what clothes they wear or whether or not they were a jock. I went to a poor, rural, American school. Grades were not respected, sports were. During my sports seasons, I spent far, far, far more time training than I did on school work. My wife taught in an inner city Detroit school and saw the same thing. Many kids didn't care because grades weren't emphasized properly. Yes, it can go to far as I'm sure it does in middle and upper class America, but I think an emphasis on doing well, to include ranking, will be a big help in rural or inner city schools.

 

[Yom]

Everyone always want to promote the good side of something.
The problem is, the bad side comes with it.

I don't believe one word of it. If anything, ranking is probably one of the worst idea in school. Be assured that pupils WILL rank themselves without any help from anyone. The need to show off is natural to human, particularly during childhood. And don't take people for fools. Even without ranking, anyone know more or less what is his place among others.
Ranking pupils validate and gives official sanction to the idea that one is better than another, and focus on only the very best. Putting people on a pedestal because they got 0,5 points out of 20 than another, is idiotic. Glorification of the rank, focus all the attention on the number 1, and tends to disreguard others, even if they are so closely matched that the difference means nothing.

Ranking, for first. Special rewards and glorification for the "best".
What's important is to RECOGNIZE the deeds. Recognizing that someone has make a good work. Glorification and ranking are not needed.

Competition has little place in education. We aren't training fighters for battle. We are teaching people to give them the basic knowledge they ought to have, and also to give them the basis of social behaviour and exchange. Promoting relentless fight because everyone is only an obstacle to your road of number 1 is more anti-social than anything.
I don't want a school that teach that you have to crush others and stand upon their heads, because you're either a winner or a loser.
A bit of competition is welcome, of course, but children are already enough pushed to compete without adding any more pressure.

Obviously we don't want competition to be the only thing that exists in schools, but the difference between you and me is that I believe that there isn't enough competition without some sort of intervention, while you believe the opposite is true. Perhaps this is due to different experiences. In my high school, people do care who is in what position, but very slightly. There isn't a real competition between the students. What has been your experience, as we may be comparing two dissimilar situations.

Also, I think you're merely seeing the bad effects of competition, without considering the good aspects. Whereas I see competition as the means to an end, you may think that I see it as the end itself, which it certainly is not. Competition is not inherently good, but the fact that it encourages people to do better in school means that they will learn more and work harder, which is the end that competition is supposed to achieve (IMHO). Though competition does encourage students to see each other as obstacles, humans are not merely competitive by nature: we are also social beings. I have a hard time believing that a school where everyone was simply out for his or her own good could arise.

As for the bolded areas, the fact that the difference between students is so miniscule is one of the reasons that competition works. Although there would still be some if there were a large difference, a small difference means that those who are already good, will strive to be even better. The student that was 0.5 points behind will try to overcome the other student, thereby working harder and learning more. In regards to recognition, how do you propose we recognize students based on deeds without considering grades as well? Ranking would allow the decision to be more objective, though I do believe that extra-curricular activities should also be considered.

I've nother better than tests in my store. Tests should exist. But they shouldn't be the end of all, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Taking into account the relativity of their meaning would be good.

No problem here, I never said tests were the perfect measure of education.

Yeah, I know. But that's not the point. Everyone has a right to live and to be happy. There is only one number 1. There is 5 999 999 999 others. I don't want a world made only for "winners" (god I hate this word).
Learning that you're good at something, and that you should take credit for it, but that it doesn't necessarily means that you're better than the next guy who's only average as it, strikes me as much more important than turning our children into competitive machines that only seek to fight their way in an arena.

The fact of the matter is, competition doesn't necessarily turn children into competitive machines. It does occassionally go to the extreme (e.g. South Korea), but that does not mean that it should not be encouraged. The trick is to find the right amount of competition necessary to encourage students to learn and work hard but not over-do it and see their peers as enemies. I do not feel that my school is at that level. For example, I would certainly do much better in school if ranking was not restricted to your grade-level, as the intelligent kids in my grade aren't much competition, even without trying. If, however, 11th graders were also ranked with seniors, then I would work much harder to ensure that I kept my valedictorian status, as I know that there are more intelligent students in that pool of students. Though I'm not actually suggesting that this be done, I am earnestly stating that if there were more competition in my school, I would do significantly better.

 

[Akka]

The problem is kids will rank themselves [...] or inner city schools.

That's also true. That's a good proof that children WILL make a ranking by themselves, with help or not. And more often than not, I noticed that this ranking comes from the ones who feel they are unable to get to the first place on the grade ranking. So, as they can't outcompete their peers on this ranking, they invent/use another, where they can get a better place.
Additionnal pressure won't do any good. The competition is already here. People that will go with another scale, will do it because they already feel unable to compete in the grade one. What good will do increased pressure ?

Obviously we don't want competition to be the only thing that exists in schools, but the difference between you and me is that I believe that there isn't enough competition without some sort of intervention, while you believe the opposite is true. Perhaps this is due to different experiences. In my high school, people do care who is in what position, but very slightly. There isn't a real competition between the students. What has been your experience, as we may be comparing two dissimilar situations.

My experience was that we had slight competition, and cared moderately about our grades. I think that's a good thing. I had friends and comrades, not just foes and opponent. That's a much better environment for a child to grow up, than to show others as enemies to be crushed.

Also, I think you're merely seeing the bad effects of competition, without considering the good aspects. Whereas I see competition as the means to an end, you may think that I see it as the end itself, which it certainly is not. Competition is not inherently good, but the fact that it encourages people to do better in school means that they will learn more and work harder, which is the end that competition is supposed to achieve (IMHO). Though competition does encourage students to see each other as obstacles, humans are not merely competitive by nature: we are also social beings. I have a hard time believing that a school where everyone was simply out for his or her own good could arise.

I'm not seeing only the bad aspect of competition. I merely see that people already try to outcompete each other by themselves, and that we don't need in any way to add to this trend. There is enough of "my dad is stronger than yours" (for the youngest) or "my d*ck is bigger than yours" (for the older) and "my bank account is bigger than yours" (for the oldest) without encouraging it even more.
Competition is not an end, yes, and that's precisely why I say it has no need to be further encouraged. "being the best" is already wired into us. We already strive to be in the best position we can. That's exactly why communism can't work. Increasing the value of competition, precisely slowly shift the importance of the goal (bettering yourself) to the mean (competition).

What's important is to improve. The relative place is (at least should be) of secondary importance. The best competition is the one you have against yourself. That's what should be teached, rather than the "crush all in your path so you can feel better than them and boost your ego".

As for the bolded areas, the fact that the difference between students is so miniscule is one of the reasons that competition works. Although there would still be some if there were a large difference, a small difference means that those who are already good, will strive to be even better. The student that was 0.5 points behind will try to overcome the other student, thereby working harder and learning more. In regards to recognition, how do you propose we recognize students based on deeds without considering grades as well? Ranking would allow the decision to be more objective, though I do believe that extra-curricular activities should also be considered.

The problem is that for a tiny difference in performance, one gets a hugely bigger amount of recognition. The problem is also that, by putting all the attention on the first place, it makes the others look comparatively unimportant. So in the end, it's only the few top-dogs that fight between themselves. When all attention is focused on number 1, because he got half a percent more than the second, how can it emulate number fifteen ? When even number 2 is considered a loser, what does it says about people who are not even in top-dog pile ?

No problem here, I never said tests were the perfect measure of education.

Yes, but rankings, and as such competition, can only be made through them. So even if competition was that good, it would still be a skewed competition, as tests, despite their usefulness, don't really represent reality.

The fact of the matter is, competition doesn't necessarily turn children into competitive machines. It does occassionally go to the extreme (e.g. South Korea), but that does not mean that it should not be encouraged. The trick is to find the right amount of competition necessary to encourage students to learn and work hard but not over-do it and see their peers as enemies. I do not feel that my school is at that level. For example, I would certainly do much better in school if ranking was not restricted to your grade-level, as the intelligent kids in my grade aren't much competition, even without trying. If, however, 11th graders were also ranked with seniors, then I would work much harder to ensure that I kept my valedictorian status, as I know that there are more intelligent students in that pool of students. Though I'm not actually suggesting that this be done, I am earnestly stating that if there were more competition in my school, I would do significantly better.

Well, I consider that we already have, by nature, a desire for competition that is sufficient to push us to perform better. We don't need to adds any more to it. We only have to recognize the accomplishments.