I cannot believe that the semester is coming to an end already! This semester has just flown by and it is crazy to think that this is my last semester on campus ever. After PSIII, I will be finished my post-secondary education!
I enjoyed this blogging experience so much. Not only was I excited to express my own views and opinions in my blog, but I also thoroughly enjoyed reading my classmates' blogs and commenting on them. I liked that we had the option to post a comment on a classmate's blog instead of posting our own. I tried to do this at least once a week to fulfill the requirements of this assignment but also to enrich my experience with the assignment. I also made an effort to respond to the comments left on my blog. It was a great way to have discussions outside of class and to see things from another person's perspective. I also appreciated all of the comments that my classmates made on my blog. I feel as though I benefited greatly from using this blog as an outlet for my ideas because I am not as keen to express my opinions in class. I think this allowed everyone to have a voice and that is so important.
I hope that you all enjoyed reading this blog as much as I enjoyed reading yours. I definitely gained a lot from your ideas and feel that I got a lot out of this experience!
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Five Models of Failure
In the last lectures of class, we discussed the "Five Models of Failure." These theories attempt to explain why some groups of students do better in school than others. This is really interesting because we often discuss groups that are "at risk" of failing. This can be a problem because we, as teachers, must be careful not to just write these children off and expect less of them. Although I do believe that there can be some truth within these theories, they are also not definite. We should encourage all students and not expect less because we are told by their IQ, family life, race, or social class that they are not able to succeed.
The first model we discussed was Social Darwinism. This theory is focused on the individual. Basically, this model believes that students fail because they are stupid and/or lazy. Any inadequacy lies within the individual themselves and not with their family, culture, class, or school system. This theory simply does not make a lot of sense and goes against almost everything we have learned throughout our education. Who defines what "being smart" is? When considering Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, we know that students learn and express their knowledge in different ways. The problem is that many tests that determine intelligence don't take this into consideration.
Psychological Deprivation was the second model we discussed. Basically, this theory states that students who come from poor homes are likely to fail because of lack of nourishment, role models and stimulation. At first I felt that this theory made the most sense. It is so hard for a child to learn when they are hungry and are basically taking care of themselves without a responsible parent in their life. We also know that students are more likely to excel when their parents take an interest in their learning and participate in learning activities with them at home. Even though I think that family has a big influence on their children, it does not mean that the children from poor homes are doomed. It is sad that a lot of teachers seem to give up on these students which is exactly the opposite of what they need.
The third model attempts to answer the question of why some families' values and attitudes are at odds with the school. This is called the Cultural Deprivation model. This model says that certain cultures are likely to fail. This is something that has come up a lot in education classes. It is not that certain cultures are less smart or less determined. It is that a lot of the measures of intelligence are biased towards white middle class culture. In addition, their first language may not be English which poses many challenges when entering school. What teachers can take away from this model is just to be aware of cultural difference. They should be embraced in the classroom. I think recently there have been some efforts to eliminate this problem such as ESL programs which is very important.
The Reproduction model was the next model to be discussed. This model looks at why only certain subcultures are at risk of failure. Central to this model is social class. It says that family transmits their values to their children and that these children are limited to their parent's occupational level - social class is reproduced. This can also be seen to an extent in our society. Some individuals may not attempt to go to university because they feel that they are not able to because no one in their family has. Experiencing large amounts of social mobility from parents is not very likely. However, hopefully with more and more educational opportunities available we can change this view. Teachers can encourage their students to pursue any interests they have and help them get there.
The final model of failure we discussed was the Administrative Model. This theory focuses on money and funding and the barriers individuals may face because of this. Advancing does cost money and it is often difficult to further one's education without loans, bursaries and part-time jobs. Because of this, educational advancement may not be available for everyone. There are ways to get there of course, but it can be a lot harder for certain individuals than others.
As Robert mentioned, the interesting thing about these models is that the teacher and school system are never blamed for the students' failure. I believe that what we need to take out of this discussion is that we should not subscribe to these models, even if we see truth in them. It is our job to help our students overcome these barriers. Of course, the student needs to want to succeed as well which is where other challenges may arise. Nevertheless, no child should be labeled as a "write off" and hopefully we never give up on or expect less of a student that falls into one of these models.
The first model we discussed was Social Darwinism. This theory is focused on the individual. Basically, this model believes that students fail because they are stupid and/or lazy. Any inadequacy lies within the individual themselves and not with their family, culture, class, or school system. This theory simply does not make a lot of sense and goes against almost everything we have learned throughout our education. Who defines what "being smart" is? When considering Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, we know that students learn and express their knowledge in different ways. The problem is that many tests that determine intelligence don't take this into consideration.
Psychological Deprivation was the second model we discussed. Basically, this theory states that students who come from poor homes are likely to fail because of lack of nourishment, role models and stimulation. At first I felt that this theory made the most sense. It is so hard for a child to learn when they are hungry and are basically taking care of themselves without a responsible parent in their life. We also know that students are more likely to excel when their parents take an interest in their learning and participate in learning activities with them at home. Even though I think that family has a big influence on their children, it does not mean that the children from poor homes are doomed. It is sad that a lot of teachers seem to give up on these students which is exactly the opposite of what they need.
The third model attempts to answer the question of why some families' values and attitudes are at odds with the school. This is called the Cultural Deprivation model. This model says that certain cultures are likely to fail. This is something that has come up a lot in education classes. It is not that certain cultures are less smart or less determined. It is that a lot of the measures of intelligence are biased towards white middle class culture. In addition, their first language may not be English which poses many challenges when entering school. What teachers can take away from this model is just to be aware of cultural difference. They should be embraced in the classroom. I think recently there have been some efforts to eliminate this problem such as ESL programs which is very important.
The Reproduction model was the next model to be discussed. This model looks at why only certain subcultures are at risk of failure. Central to this model is social class. It says that family transmits their values to their children and that these children are limited to their parent's occupational level - social class is reproduced. This can also be seen to an extent in our society. Some individuals may not attempt to go to university because they feel that they are not able to because no one in their family has. Experiencing large amounts of social mobility from parents is not very likely. However, hopefully with more and more educational opportunities available we can change this view. Teachers can encourage their students to pursue any interests they have and help them get there.
The final model of failure we discussed was the Administrative Model. This theory focuses on money and funding and the barriers individuals may face because of this. Advancing does cost money and it is often difficult to further one's education without loans, bursaries and part-time jobs. Because of this, educational advancement may not be available for everyone. There are ways to get there of course, but it can be a lot harder for certain individuals than others.
As Robert mentioned, the interesting thing about these models is that the teacher and school system are never blamed for the students' failure. I believe that what we need to take out of this discussion is that we should not subscribe to these models, even if we see truth in them. It is our job to help our students overcome these barriers. Of course, the student needs to want to succeed as well which is where other challenges may arise. Nevertheless, no child should be labeled as a "write off" and hopefully we never give up on or expect less of a student that falls into one of these models.
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Homework Issue
Homework is a topic that has come up a lot in class discussions and also in some blog posts that I have read so I thought that I should discuss it as well.
If anyone reading this has not heard of the homework issue in question, you can visit the link Calgary Family Negotiates Homework Ban. Basically, a family voiced their concerns about the homework load their children were receiving and signed a contract with the school to eliminate homework altogether. The students will be marked instead only on work done in the classroom. They will, however, still be required to study for tests on their own time.
This is a really interesting topic to discuss. In my experiences the deal is - if you do your work in class, you will not have any homework. I agree with this method to an extent. However, it seems that students are often sent home work that they did not (or could not) complete in class. This concerns me because this could very likely mean that the student is not understanding something. Sending more work for the child to complete at home will not help them understand the concepts. Time needs to be set aside to work with the student. If the child is not completing work in class because of distractions, remove the distractions.
In my experience in PSI and PSII, both of my Teacher Associates did not believe in sending home assignments. I feel that this made sense when working with Grade 2s. It was very apparent that those students not completing their work were struggling with the content. Therefore, as teachers, it is our job to work with the student until they understand. However, when I was teaching a Grade 9 class in a school that did not really allow homework, some problems arose. I was required to give my students way too much class time (in my opinion) to complete projects I had them working on. Often they were off task and wasted their time. I tried to have a "one student to another" conversation with some of them asking them why they were doing this. I told them that I would LOVE it if my profs in university gave me time to finish all of my assignments during class and that they should take advantage of the time they had in class. I could not understand why they did not want to participate in activities they enjoyed at home instead of doing work. Most told me they preferred to do things at home. Why... I never understood. It made me lose a lot of teaching time.
On the other hand, I do believe that homework has its place. When working on certain projects, it is sometimes easier to complete at home due to space or materials. In addition, it sort of prepares them for the future because, as mentioned, university work is typically completed at home.
Instead of sending home "busy work", teachers should encourage parents to spend time with their children and be interested in their learning. Reading together or discussing events. This could be completed with literacy backpacks, family history interviews, etc. Teachers should be careful about what sort of work they are sending home and must make sure it is not just "busy work" or work that the child was unable to complete because they did not understand. We should be enhancing their learning through homework, not using it as a punishment.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Does the "Glass Ceiling" still exist?
During the presentation yesterday, we had a short class discussion about whether or not we felt that there was still a "glass ceiling" in our society. Basically, the glass ceiling refers to a situation in which a qualified individual is essentially stopped from advancing further in their career due to some form of discrimination. In the context we were focusing on, we were discussing sexism. We were asked if we thought there was still this invisible barrier for women in the work place.
I have discussed this concept very briefly in other courses and it's interesting because I have always sort of felt that it was an outdated term. However, after reading some blogs and listening to class discussions, it seems as though that may not be the case. A classmate made the comment that men were getting paid significantly more money for doing the same job as some women. This doesn't make any sense and I was a little skeptical about this statement. I just can't see how employers would get away with that. I would agree that it is often easier for men to advance in certain careers but if a man and a woman are at the same level, they should be getting paid the same. I would say that presently, this is not as prominent as it once was although it seems that discrimination of some form in the workplace will always exists.
It still seems that there are certain jobs that are considered to be a man's job or a woman's job. I remember my first days of university at the U of A. We were placed in groups based on our faculty for orientation. I remember everyone recognizing who the engineers were because 98% of them were male. We could also easily recognize where the nursing faculty was as their group was 98% female. This is changing slightly but looking around the classroom, there are way more women than men in all of my education classes. That field is still dominated by women. However, it was brought up that although there are a lot of female teachers, most administrators were men. This is definitely not the case anymore. Both of the schools that I did my practicums in had female principals. I definitely think that is changing a bit and women are able to advance a lot more.
But is it going too far? Sometimes I feel as though certain sexes are more suited for a job BUT on the other hand, I also think that sex should NOT be looked at when being considered for a job. Employers should be looking for skills, experience, qualifications, etc. In some cases, a position is given to a woman just because she is a woman. I have a relative who is a firefighter. He says that their company is required to have a certain number of women, and also that he feels as though some of those woman would not be able to pull him out of a burning building should the situation arise. That is a little bit scary. Don't get me wrong, I am not discouraging women from becoming firefighters. I just feel as though everyone should be looked at based on their qualifications not on gender... Or race for that matter. Many companies are required to hire so many minorities and schools also need to admit so many. How is that fair? Why can't people just be looked at based on their qualifications? It seems as though everyone is trying not to discriminate but doesn't know exactly how to approach it fairly.
Things have definitely changed with respect to women and minority groups in the workplace. However, there are always still problems with the system. As you can see, I feel as though it can go both ways or be pushed too far. I like to think that we are moving in the right direction but I also know that my knowledge is limited on the subject as I have not experienced much of this first hand. Any thoughts??
I have discussed this concept very briefly in other courses and it's interesting because I have always sort of felt that it was an outdated term. However, after reading some blogs and listening to class discussions, it seems as though that may not be the case. A classmate made the comment that men were getting paid significantly more money for doing the same job as some women. This doesn't make any sense and I was a little skeptical about this statement. I just can't see how employers would get away with that. I would agree that it is often easier for men to advance in certain careers but if a man and a woman are at the same level, they should be getting paid the same. I would say that presently, this is not as prominent as it once was although it seems that discrimination of some form in the workplace will always exists.
It still seems that there are certain jobs that are considered to be a man's job or a woman's job. I remember my first days of university at the U of A. We were placed in groups based on our faculty for orientation. I remember everyone recognizing who the engineers were because 98% of them were male. We could also easily recognize where the nursing faculty was as their group was 98% female. This is changing slightly but looking around the classroom, there are way more women than men in all of my education classes. That field is still dominated by women. However, it was brought up that although there are a lot of female teachers, most administrators were men. This is definitely not the case anymore. Both of the schools that I did my practicums in had female principals. I definitely think that is changing a bit and women are able to advance a lot more.
But is it going too far? Sometimes I feel as though certain sexes are more suited for a job BUT on the other hand, I also think that sex should NOT be looked at when being considered for a job. Employers should be looking for skills, experience, qualifications, etc. In some cases, a position is given to a woman just because she is a woman. I have a relative who is a firefighter. He says that their company is required to have a certain number of women, and also that he feels as though some of those woman would not be able to pull him out of a burning building should the situation arise. That is a little bit scary. Don't get me wrong, I am not discouraging women from becoming firefighters. I just feel as though everyone should be looked at based on their qualifications not on gender... Or race for that matter. Many companies are required to hire so many minorities and schools also need to admit so many. How is that fair? Why can't people just be looked at based on their qualifications? It seems as though everyone is trying not to discriminate but doesn't know exactly how to approach it fairly.
Things have definitely changed with respect to women and minority groups in the workplace. However, there are always still problems with the system. As you can see, I feel as though it can go both ways or be pushed too far. I like to think that we are moving in the right direction but I also know that my knowledge is limited on the subject as I have not experienced much of this first hand. Any thoughts??
Thursday, November 26, 2009
How Prepared Are We to Teach?
Another interesting part of the presentation today was the questionnaire we filled out concerning how prepared we felt from the information we received in our on-campus education courses and how important these factors were in practicum.
To be honest, aside from a handful of skills that could have been taught more in depth, I felt fairly prepared for my practicums – as prepared as you can be with little actual field experience. There are definitely some things that need to be learned out in the field; however, having the information given to us in class was very helpful. I might not have felt completely confident in all of these areas entering the school but I knew that I would learn what I needed to through experience.
It seems as though a lot of people in the class felt underprepared in areas such as establishing rapport with students, developing interpersonal human relationships with peers and superiors, and working with parents. Touching on these issues in class is helpful, however, I don’t know if these skills can necessarily be taught. It has a lot to do with personality and life experience. As we progress with our careers, we will become increasingly confident in these important skills.
One skill that I had not really considered was number 16 – Understanding the changing nature of pupils’ families. This is something that is becoming very prominent. Many children are living in single parent homes or have parents who are divorced. There can be some very touchy issues there and this seems important to talk about before actually experiencing it. In my PSI experience, I had twins in my Grade 2 class whose parents were divorced. The parents did not get along at all, tried to turn their children against the other parent, blamed the other parent when the children came to school unprepared, and demanded separate parent/teacher interviews because they could not be in the same room. My TA was awesome when dealing with this situation but it really scared me because I would not know how to deal with this at all. It was helpful that I got to experience this. Maybe I will feel a little more prepared if I encounter this in my career.
I learn through experience. I don’t necessarily need all of the theories and strategies. A lot are VERY helpful don't get me wrong but putting them into practice is the most important. I think that this is why the U of L is often held above other Universities - because we get a lot of great field experience. All of our work here will be worth it!
To be honest, aside from a handful of skills that could have been taught more in depth, I felt fairly prepared for my practicums – as prepared as you can be with little actual field experience. There are definitely some things that need to be learned out in the field; however, having the information given to us in class was very helpful. I might not have felt completely confident in all of these areas entering the school but I knew that I would learn what I needed to through experience.
It seems as though a lot of people in the class felt underprepared in areas such as establishing rapport with students, developing interpersonal human relationships with peers and superiors, and working with parents. Touching on these issues in class is helpful, however, I don’t know if these skills can necessarily be taught. It has a lot to do with personality and life experience. As we progress with our careers, we will become increasingly confident in these important skills.
One skill that I had not really considered was number 16 – Understanding the changing nature of pupils’ families. This is something that is becoming very prominent. Many children are living in single parent homes or have parents who are divorced. There can be some very touchy issues there and this seems important to talk about before actually experiencing it. In my PSI experience, I had twins in my Grade 2 class whose parents were divorced. The parents did not get along at all, tried to turn their children against the other parent, blamed the other parent when the children came to school unprepared, and demanded separate parent/teacher interviews because they could not be in the same room. My TA was awesome when dealing with this situation but it really scared me because I would not know how to deal with this at all. It was helpful that I got to experience this. Maybe I will feel a little more prepared if I encounter this in my career.
I learn through experience. I don’t necessarily need all of the theories and strategies. A lot are VERY helpful don't get me wrong but putting them into practice is the most important. I think that this is why the U of L is often held above other Universities - because we get a lot of great field experience. All of our work here will be worth it!
Do Post-Secondary Grades Measure Teacher Success?
The presentation today led to some fantastic discussions at the end of class. It is interesting that there are so many differing opinions on the topic as well.
One issue that has come up many times in class and also in blog posts is the topic of being admitted to the faculty of education based only on GPA. We know that being highly intelligent and getting straight A’s does not mean that you will be a good teacher by any stretch so why are admissions based on marks? This is an interesting topic. To be clear, I don’t think that this is the best system. However, I disagree when people make the argument that so many people who would be great teachers don’t get there because of the admission requirements to get into the program. I feel that if a person has a strong passion to become a teacher, they will become one. When I took Ed 2500, my professor explained the admission requirements to us and he said not to worry and that if we wanted to be teachers, we would be. We might not get in right away and we might go to different institutions but we will get there if we want to. I agree completely with this. Perhaps grades don’t matter when you are a teacher but I think that people should be able to work for it. It’s not like you need a 4.0 to get in. I will admit that I did not get in the first year I applied because of my marks. However, I worked hard, reapplied and got in right away. If this is impossible for some people, I question whether they should be educators. It may seem a little harsh but that is just my opinion on that particular argument. On the other hand, I do agree that individuals who have struggled at some point in their academic career do make great teachers as they can relate to students and can better explain and break concepts down. I think we all have something that we have struggled with that can help us relate to our students.
Robert also brought up a really interesting point about giving marks in Education classes once in the program. I always wondered why education classes weren’t just “pass or fail.” It seems that everyone just got an A on everything anyway. What I did not consider was what this would do to a person’s GPA. Classes that are pass/fail are not calculated into a GPA and so may give an inaccurate representation of an individual’s undergraduate work. I understand this but I also think it is so important at this stage in our academic careers to really concentrate and reflect on our own learning and not worry so much about marks.
One issue that has come up many times in class and also in blog posts is the topic of being admitted to the faculty of education based only on GPA. We know that being highly intelligent and getting straight A’s does not mean that you will be a good teacher by any stretch so why are admissions based on marks? This is an interesting topic. To be clear, I don’t think that this is the best system. However, I disagree when people make the argument that so many people who would be great teachers don’t get there because of the admission requirements to get into the program. I feel that if a person has a strong passion to become a teacher, they will become one. When I took Ed 2500, my professor explained the admission requirements to us and he said not to worry and that if we wanted to be teachers, we would be. We might not get in right away and we might go to different institutions but we will get there if we want to. I agree completely with this. Perhaps grades don’t matter when you are a teacher but I think that people should be able to work for it. It’s not like you need a 4.0 to get in. I will admit that I did not get in the first year I applied because of my marks. However, I worked hard, reapplied and got in right away. If this is impossible for some people, I question whether they should be educators. It may seem a little harsh but that is just my opinion on that particular argument. On the other hand, I do agree that individuals who have struggled at some point in their academic career do make great teachers as they can relate to students and can better explain and break concepts down. I think we all have something that we have struggled with that can help us relate to our students.
Robert also brought up a really interesting point about giving marks in Education classes once in the program. I always wondered why education classes weren’t just “pass or fail.” It seems that everyone just got an A on everything anyway. What I did not consider was what this would do to a person’s GPA. Classes that are pass/fail are not calculated into a GPA and so may give an inaccurate representation of an individual’s undergraduate work. I understand this but I also think it is so important at this stage in our academic careers to really concentrate and reflect on our own learning and not worry so much about marks.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The Up Series Revisited – Age 28
On Thursday, we were able to watch a few follow up videos of the Up series. As previously mentioned, the video we watched on Tuesday showed the thirteen children at age 7. The video we watched on Thursday focused on these individuals at age 28 but showed some footage from when they were 14 and 21. This was very interesting to see and I think the results surprised a lot of us.
Because of time constraints we were only able to watch updates on three of the thirteen children. Here were their results …
Paul
At age 7, Paul went to a Charity Boarding School and was considered to be lower class. Paul expressed his interest in wanting to become a police officer but realized that he would not be able to get into university to achieve this goal. We predicted that he probably would be working a lower class job in adulthood. However, at age 28, Paul is a successful brick layer in Australia. He lives in a middle class suburb with his wife. Their house it a descent size, they have two children and two cars. It appears that Paul has experienced social mobility by moving into the middle class. How did this happen? Well, it seems that the reason for his success is the fact that he moved to Australia. Australia is characterized by a contest system (like North America) whereas England is based on the sponsorship model. Because of his move, he sort of cheated the system. He was able to advance much further in life than he would have if he remained in the UK. Paul expresses how he hopes that his children can do even better than he did by receiving the education he was not able to receive. This is interesting because this is something that would happen in the contest system. In the UK sponsored system, parents expect their children to be of the same social class as them.
Suzy
At age 7, Suzy went to a Private Girls Boarding School and was considered to be quite upper class. Her days were very structured and her mom had picked out schools for her to attend. We predicted that she would probably attend school but end up marrying a rich husband and stay home to raise her children. What was interesting about Suzy is that she was quite rebellious at age 21. She had dropped out of school and said that she never wanted to get married or have children. By age 28, Suzy was married to a wealthy man and had two children. They had a nice home and she was raising her children. She indicated that she would send her children to a private boarding school even though her and her husband did not really enjoy the experience. She said that it was what they knew and also acknowledged the quality of education they would receive there. Even though she went through her rebellious stage, she still ended up more or less where we thought she would be.
Nicholas
Nicholas was perhaps the most surprising to me. At age 7, Nicholas lived in a rural community and was the only child his age in the village. He went to school in a one room school house and indicated that he wanted to learn about the moon and things. He was not considered to be high class or cultured. However, at age 28 … he is a nuclear physicist! He studied at Oxford and moved to Wisconsin with his (crazy) wife to be a professor at a university. I definitely did not expect this. So, how did this happen? At age 11, Nicholas scored very highly on the 11 Plus exam and was identified as gifted. Therefore, he was resocialized in the elite class and received a very good education from a prestigious institution. Even though he received this high education, there was apparently not much use for scientists at the time in the UK and he was not making much money. However, when he moved to the US, he makes more money. By switching from a sponsored system to a contest system, Nicholas was able to be more successful in his chosen field.
It was so interesting watching these follow up videos and I am very interested in watching more of them. It appears that it is difficult to change classes in the sponsored system unless you score well on the 11 plus exam. Both Paul and Nicholas were able to be successful because they moved to another system. I am interested to see if this is the case with all of the children.
Because of time constraints we were only able to watch updates on three of the thirteen children. Here were their results …
Paul
At age 7, Paul went to a Charity Boarding School and was considered to be lower class. Paul expressed his interest in wanting to become a police officer but realized that he would not be able to get into university to achieve this goal. We predicted that he probably would be working a lower class job in adulthood. However, at age 28, Paul is a successful brick layer in Australia. He lives in a middle class suburb with his wife. Their house it a descent size, they have two children and two cars. It appears that Paul has experienced social mobility by moving into the middle class. How did this happen? Well, it seems that the reason for his success is the fact that he moved to Australia. Australia is characterized by a contest system (like North America) whereas England is based on the sponsorship model. Because of his move, he sort of cheated the system. He was able to advance much further in life than he would have if he remained in the UK. Paul expresses how he hopes that his children can do even better than he did by receiving the education he was not able to receive. This is interesting because this is something that would happen in the contest system. In the UK sponsored system, parents expect their children to be of the same social class as them.
Suzy
At age 7, Suzy went to a Private Girls Boarding School and was considered to be quite upper class. Her days were very structured and her mom had picked out schools for her to attend. We predicted that she would probably attend school but end up marrying a rich husband and stay home to raise her children. What was interesting about Suzy is that she was quite rebellious at age 21. She had dropped out of school and said that she never wanted to get married or have children. By age 28, Suzy was married to a wealthy man and had two children. They had a nice home and she was raising her children. She indicated that she would send her children to a private boarding school even though her and her husband did not really enjoy the experience. She said that it was what they knew and also acknowledged the quality of education they would receive there. Even though she went through her rebellious stage, she still ended up more or less where we thought she would be.
Nicholas
Nicholas was perhaps the most surprising to me. At age 7, Nicholas lived in a rural community and was the only child his age in the village. He went to school in a one room school house and indicated that he wanted to learn about the moon and things. He was not considered to be high class or cultured. However, at age 28 … he is a nuclear physicist! He studied at Oxford and moved to Wisconsin with his (crazy) wife to be a professor at a university. I definitely did not expect this. So, how did this happen? At age 11, Nicholas scored very highly on the 11 Plus exam and was identified as gifted. Therefore, he was resocialized in the elite class and received a very good education from a prestigious institution. Even though he received this high education, there was apparently not much use for scientists at the time in the UK and he was not making much money. However, when he moved to the US, he makes more money. By switching from a sponsored system to a contest system, Nicholas was able to be more successful in his chosen field.
It was so interesting watching these follow up videos and I am very interested in watching more of them. It appears that it is difficult to change classes in the sponsored system unless you score well on the 11 plus exam. Both Paul and Nicholas were able to be successful because they moved to another system. I am interested to see if this is the case with all of the children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
