So, I'm guessing he pulled a CWC and didn't pay attention to anything.
Mrenter's view on College -
- Thread starter Cgame
- Start date
-
Sister services, email, and search will continue to be negatively effected by the attacks. I made a thread to talk about it, if you're into networking.
Figured he hated English. Because that would have taught him to actually write normally.
Even when I was having a real tough time in high school I still had as couple classes I enjoyed. You don't have to be the best and the brightest to like learning.
Exactly
But to like learning you can't be a pretentious twat who thinks he knows everything already,like Enter
I can attest to this. I sucked at math and absolutely hated French class. But I liked English and Art. As you said, just because you hate one subject doesn't mean you have to hate every other one.
Also note that he doesn't bring up either Art or Gym class. Either he didn't care to mention those, or just never took them. Both options are likely, but I feel it's the former.
Last edited:
I like to think Art, Gym, as well as English - HANDED HIM IS STUPID ASS.
Found this post by MrEnter and some of his points are wrong.
http://mrenter.tumblr.com/post/88991426014/how-would-you-fix-the-education-system-in-the-us
http://mrenter.tumblr.com/post/88991426014/how-would-you-fix-the-education-system-in-the-us
MrEnter doesn't seem to realize what Standardized tests are; if a test is standardized, all that means is that it is fair, everyone has the same or equally difficult questions and that they are graded the exact same way. Whether or not these tests are being misused is a different story, but standardized testing as a whole should not be removed. This is a common error a lot of people make and I could give MrEnter a break on his research if this was the only error he made, however it is not.
While learning styles are an important thing to consider, they aren't something that are entirely locked in place. In other words, you can learn how to use different learning styles more effectively, something which is necessary to function in every day life (you can't learn EVERYTHING you need to learn with musical-rhythmic intelligence, for example.) Generally speaking, the most effective way to learn something is to teach it to someone else, but it isn't always practical or reasonable to have students try to teach everything they learn to someone else.
Easily the worst error in his post is his idea of grouping children entirely by academic skill as opposed to age. Children of different ages have inherently different needs. A child should not be expected to use hypothetical/abstract thought needed for higher level writing and math, their brains don't develop the ability to understand these ideas until adolescences (which is why students start to learn algebra in middle school.) This has also been shown to be negative for the advanced children socially as it would obviously be difficult for a child to be accepted by an older adolescence crowd.
If we assume that he only meant within the grade level, then this would still be wrong. Although it works well for the academically advanced children, it would be terrible for the academically challenged children as they would be labelled as "the dumb ones" which has a large number of consequences such as lower expectations from teachers (which has been proven to lead to lower grades), if it is bad enough then learned helplessness can occur when the student believes they cannot succeed so they stop trying (due to the lower expectations), being stigmatized by peers for being in the "dumb" classes which can lead to being unpopular and having worse grades, and crowding both students who genuinely struggle and troublemakers who don't try together, this leads to the troublemakers learning new ways to make trouble and teaching the struggling students how to misbehave. It is much smarter to integrate struggling students with average students as it can avoid quite a few of the issues I mentioned (not the expectation problem, although its not as bad without the explicit label).
A few of his points are accurate though; although some schools are making the push towards better technology, teaching children how to use technology is important. MrEnter is also correct on a zero tolerance policy on bullying and that current bullying prevention programs are not effective (although I am doubtful on whether or not he actually researched this,) he is also right about college education in this scenario, but schools do need to provide an alternative to colleges such as trade schools rather than leaving students with low paying jobs. The other points he mentioned are more quality of life nitpicks which wouldn't drastically improve the education system in the United States.
While learning styles are an important thing to consider, they aren't something that are entirely locked in place. In other words, you can learn how to use different learning styles more effectively, something which is necessary to function in every day life (you can't learn EVERYTHING you need to learn with musical-rhythmic intelligence, for example.) Generally speaking, the most effective way to learn something is to teach it to someone else, but it isn't always practical or reasonable to have students try to teach everything they learn to someone else.
Easily the worst error in his post is his idea of grouping children entirely by academic skill as opposed to age. Children of different ages have inherently different needs. A child should not be expected to use hypothetical/abstract thought needed for higher level writing and math, their brains don't develop the ability to understand these ideas until adolescences (which is why students start to learn algebra in middle school.) This has also been shown to be negative for the advanced children socially as it would obviously be difficult for a child to be accepted by an older adolescence crowd.
If we assume that he only meant within the grade level, then this would still be wrong. Although it works well for the academically advanced children, it would be terrible for the academically challenged children as they would be labelled as "the dumb ones" which has a large number of consequences such as lower expectations from teachers (which has been proven to lead to lower grades), if it is bad enough then learned helplessness can occur when the student believes they cannot succeed so they stop trying (due to the lower expectations), being stigmatized by peers for being in the "dumb" classes which can lead to being unpopular and having worse grades, and crowding both students who genuinely struggle and troublemakers who don't try together, this leads to the troublemakers learning new ways to make trouble and teaching the struggling students how to misbehave. It is much smarter to integrate struggling students with average students as it can avoid quite a few of the issues I mentioned (not the expectation problem, although its not as bad without the explicit label).
A few of his points are accurate though; although some schools are making the push towards better technology, teaching children how to use technology is important. MrEnter is also correct on a zero tolerance policy on bullying and that current bullying prevention programs are not effective (although I am doubtful on whether or not he actually researched this,) he is also right about college education in this scenario, but schools do need to provide an alternative to colleges such as trade schools rather than leaving students with low paying jobs. The other points he mentioned are more quality of life nitpicks which wouldn't drastically improve the education system in the United States.
All of his points are pretty stupid, and he's getting praised by it
I'm not american, but is the system there as bad as Enter makes it to be?
Nah - he's just mad that art and gym kicked his ass and left him to the curb when he needed it.
There are problems with the system and it could be improved, but the problems aren't consistent throughout the United States. A place like Massachusetts has an excellent educational system, but Florida isn't that great. It is nothing horrendous though like MrEnter makes it out to be, its still has the quality of a first world education even if it is worse than other first world nations.
I've always felt the US system of education (and yes, I'm from here, so I know a little about it from experience!) was lacking, compared to other 1st-world nations in general and has always needed serious improvements. Too bad nothing Enter offers sounds like it would ever work without some kind of violent upheaval that would ultimately come crashing down on its stupid ass.
It must be better than the public education system in my country, even with minimal effort, and being absent half a year, you get approved, and the teachers get on strikes once in a while, because their job conditions suck, and there are even violent students against teachers etc. Luckily I always went to private schools that are great.
Living in a third world country sucks.
But the public universities here are great, and the private ones not so.
Apparently MrEnter lived in Massachusetts, which as I said earlier has an excellent educational system. This makes his views on education even more confusing (unless he moved early in life).
I'd like to believe he just didn't give two shits about his education and is only laying through his teeth that he "hated it."
Gee, his "abusive" parents sent him to an "abusive" school, where he forgot to do his "abusive" homework. He then had a nice, tasty "abusive" sandwich.
And then made a bunch of "abusive" reviews and an "abusive" cartoon... wait.
The fact that he won't even consider a community college is pretty indicative of his ego. Community college is a perfectly valid option for anyone, especially people on a budget. For minor classes and general education you'll get about as good an education as a university, if not more, for less money (I've known people with PhDs that still choose to work at community colleges over uni's because they're better suited for actual teaching). At the very least he'd get some degree of discipline and outside influence which might actually give him a shot at real animation work. You'd think someone who was truly passionate about their craft wouldn't spare any expense to get further in their field, especially when these days animation is very big with tons of jobs available. He wouldn't even have to stress himself with too much work. You can take courses part-time. Yes, it'll take longer to get a degree but you'll still get it eventually.
But no. It's too much work and he'll actually be *gasp* challenged. He might have to acknowledge that animation made before the late 90's is important. He might receive outside criticism that'll break his poor widdle aspie heart. We can't have that, can we?
But no. It's too much work and he'll actually be *gasp* challenged. He might have to acknowledge that animation made before the late 90's is important. He might receive outside criticism that'll break his poor widdle aspie heart. We can't have that, can we?
ah even if the collage professor was too mean to him he could always go back to his hugbox on devientart
Too bad this wuss needs THIS. And Badly if he wants to get any modicum of respect or notability of good regard in this career field he shits on with all of his ilk.
Similar threads
The Proliferation of Sissy Hypno on Social Media
Loliconnoisseur, always winning.
