Mulling

Leslie just did a survey of her high school experience, prompted by a New York Times article about the experience not preparing people for college. Hers was less positive than mine, from what I can remember. Let me think...

Math:

Mixed. There was some rigor there. The quality of the teachers above, say, Algebra II level, was good. We had to perform proofs in Geometry, even if they were very basic angle rules. I learned how to factor quadratics (and more) like a madman, and even in Precalculus, the most motley collection of mathematical concepts seen in this galaxy, the work and the effort was rewarding, even if some of those concepts have hardly ever come up again, like those trigonometric shapes. (What shape does cos(3x) give? I don't know!) At the time I found that teacher rather dull, but at least we learned. Mostly. I had to teach Ben behind me. It could've been more productive. And seeing as they had no higher math my senior year, there was nothing but physics to sate myself... and free-study Calculus. Free-study Calculus started with the best of intentions, but it's impossible to prioritize it when there's no grade or tangible reward for doing it (the learning doesn't count as tangible). So when I got all the way to integrals somehow, my foundational knowledge was low and on the AP test, I scored a 2 because I couldn't prove to save my life.

So the math department serviced those who were competent and even smart, but not those who were ambitious. Not consistently, anyhow.

Social Studies:

World History was lackluster, and I suspect that the other non-advanced classes were the same. It was all factual, with little correlation. Our teacher skipped China, Japan, India... every culture I would've liked to study, because he wanted to get to the good stuff, and he didn't have a feeling for those ones. Ah, Western-centric learning... I actually read those on my own. Then again, there were only three or four people in that class that gave a whoop about history.

But then AP US History and AP Government were better. The former was very rigorous, to the point where I could pop out an essay on any topic between 1607 and 2003. It was also enthusiastic; when we got to Andrew Jackson, we took a day out to talk about him and his wife, Rachel. At the end of the year, we watched several movies, and one of them... was about that one. The latter was more candid, and more rushed (we didn't cover everything we should've), but was overall satisfying enough. If I had had to take the regular class... I wouldn't have been as ready or as understanding of any course involving American history or contemporary politics.

English:

... no. My experience may be a specific one though. Freshman year we had a slow teacher who managed to stretch out Romeo and Juliet over a long stretch of time. There were a couple of good things that year (Walt Whitman for a project, The Odyssey abridged), but very little writing, very little thought beyond the obvious.

Sophomore year was good. Encouraging. Did everything to make me love English... started me writing with earnest. Read some of my favorite plays ever, especially Cyrano de Bergerac. Studied Emily Dickenson. Worked on vocabulary consistently. The formal writing wasn't much, and it wasn't that rigorous, but it was refreshing.

Then came the year of disaster. We go from having the most demanding boldest teacher yet to having a string of subs from October to May, some staying for weeks. At first we had been blazing, with creative but structured assignments. She was the English savior, going to whip us into shape for our writing assessment. After she left, we got some critical analysis from two subs in particular, but both eventually left, leaving us with a woman who read Raisin in the Sun and demanded nothing more than page-rooting from us.

And senior year was okay again. We had to write some more, but it wasn't major. More reading, more assignments, more discussion. It was good. Not great but good.

And then I came to college, wrote a paper, and got a C+ on it. I improved after that, but I'd had Governor's School and took the AP English test. For anyone who did less than me, I can see how they would absolutely need those intro English courses, at the very least.

Science:

Ah, the exception! At least with the teachers I had, the science courses were the best ones. Biology and Chemistry were both action-packed and sufficiently introductory and yet thought-provoking. And AP Biology was the best class I took. Oh my. Oh yes. It was awe-inspiring. If someone didn't feel up to that, there was Physics and Anatomy and Physiology. The former was good, the latter... was mostly alright. It was light on the Physiology bit, which describes how the body works, but still good.

With the exception of forcing every person in advanced science to do a science fair project.

Mine were always lackluster, though impeccably written up and presented, because I didn't care beyond the grade. A few people did, and they did wonderfully. Many cared less than me, and performed accordingly. It is probably a focus I've underappreciated, but... one has to care for the whole process and more. I was too short-sighted to see it that way.

And there's French, and noncore courses, and they did their part... I even enjoyed them, though not many would say the same about French, sadly. Ah well.

I guess, overall, the point is that, from where I was, it seems like the basic classes were too basic, and the high line was sometimes good (Social Studies, Science) and sometimes not (Math, English). The classes were good for introducing concepts, but as far as preparing for college, they could've done more. This is probably somewhat different in other schools, but I wonder by how much it is.