Woot, much better.
I'll be more civil here as you have spoken to me with respect, not patronising like previously.
Now I understand. Brisbane is more humid than the cities I mentioned. So forcedly the temperature tend to get less extreme but it always feel hotter (or colder) than it really is, like in Tokyo.
Granted its never AS humid as what I experienced in Tokyo. Even with warning, the humidity and temperature there was foul.
In dry places like most of Australia but from Brisbane up the East Coast and top North, temperatures would change more dramatically in just one day (I heard people in Melbourne say that they can get the 4 seasons in a single day). That's why if you look at the averages, Brisbane may seem similar to, say Adelaide, but in fact the day and night, or day to day difference will be more pronounced in drier Adelaide.
Grandted yes.
However I just did an ask around of family and friends who lived or live in Melbourne. The common theme is days over 35-36 degrees are rare. They happen twice a year if that and are uncommon enough to get media coverage and out of the ordinary behaviour. So exceedingly hot days do happen, but very rarely and our out of the ordinary. Just like freaskishly cold days. Wet days. Snowy days. Because they still happen they pop up as the maximum temps on stats but they aren't coomon, they aren't the norm and they aren't something that people generally prepare for or consider.
The weather plays a role for sure. I can't imagine Santas wearing shorts and shirts in Northern Europe when it's typically freezing around Xmas.
It plays a role in as much as the Santa image gets 'modified' for a cultural stereotyped depiction. You'll find Santa in shorts a shirt will always be carrying a surfboard and beach towel, or wearing those ridiculous (and unrealistic) cork-rimmed hats and a beer esky. In other words representing a 'stereotyped' Aussie. But again its not a norm here. Its more akin to dressing santa in a red and white yukata in Japan to fit that nations 'image'. You can do it sure, but its still not the norm. Dig?
I don't threaten people like some of my teachers did. As I said it's not arrogance but strictness, which is necessarily in any good education system. I did learn more with strict teachers than with others.
Strict teachers yes. Some are good. I myself didn't like soft teachers. But strict to the point of verbally assaulting a person on their FIRST error is too much.
That's a good point. The question is, "what is school made for ?" To create specialists, or give everybody the basics in as many subjects as possible so that 1) they have a good general knowledge, 2) they can more easily choose their orientation at university and in life because they know better whether they like a subject or not.
I'm honestly conflicted about wether I like the aussie system or not. In one way it works because it lets students take an interest in what they like and not worry about something that doesnt work for them. Occasionally we used to get little a-holes popping in a class they obviously didnt want to be in and had no interest in. They were plain disruptive and annoying. It also means that University can be straight into the course/subject/faculty you need. No fuffing about like American systems were you seem to choose a whole bunch of seemingly random subjects and courses for the first few years. You are prepared to go straight into it. Typically Aussie students get their Bachelors Degree by the time they are 21 and can enter the workforce in their chosen field then. If it doesn't work for you, entering University again is very easy. 'Mature age' students are exceedingly common. In my course they outnumbered direct entry students.
On the other hand, yes, you do miss information thats worthy of general knowledge.
I obviously lean a little more to the system in place. Doing subjects in school I didn't want to do would have more than likely held me back. I wouldn't have pushed myself in them as much as I did with the subjects I chose.
Where I come from, people who want to study technical subjects can choose a technical orientation with more emphasis on practical (as opposed to theoretical) sciences, and fewer hours of arts, languages or others.
Sounds somewhat similar to here really.
Did you feel belittled ? Maybe you are a bit too sensitive here (or maybe not used to being publicly corrected).
Dude I am all to jiggy with the public correction thing. I endorse that product or service 100% when done right.
Lets take for example your correction to me re: Iran. If you wrote it like this:
No more than Turks or Afghanis or Pakistani or Chinese or Swedish or Mexicans. The Iranians descend from the Aryans, like Caucasians and (Northern) Indians people. They speak an Indo-European language descending from Persian, a language related to Latin, Greek and Sanskrit.
Iran/Persia is a country with the oldest history, and they have rarely been on good terms with the Arab neighbours in Iraq/Babylon or Syria/Assyria. What's more Iran's population (70m) is bigger than Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (basically all the Arab heartland) combined.
Note how I did not omit any information you posted. I did omit the belittling remarks and the remarks that bordered on insulting.
I would have been MUCH more receptive to you if you posted in this way. As it was because you came in swinging I passively agressively ignored the content of your post. Why? Because yes, your comments seemed enginereed to belittle. And obviously I don't respond well to that.
But I do take correction. If you posted my edited way I would ahve said:
Woops, my mistake then. Cool. Learn something new every day.
My best teachers from primary school to uniersity were usually the stricter ones. These are the ones we (me and my former class mates) remember, and that have given us the necessary discipline to learn by ourselves and want to learn more.
This guys was hated and is sill disliked by me and former classmates to this day.
He taught math. And if a student made a mistake he went straight away at the kids throat. No gentle correction the first time. No decent explanation of were the error was. Belittling and public humiliation were his tricks of the trade. He was my friends Math B teacher.
Compare to my Math B teacher, Mrs Humphries. She was strict yes. If our CLASS average dropped below a B she would get annoyed. We commonly had our entire class kept in at lunch times to go over work we had to do. We had seating arrangements, which is very rare in Aussie schools. Sounds strict right? Yet she was very popular and well liked. Because as hard as she was there, she never, EVER got condescending, insulting or belittling to a student unless the absolutely deserved it. If a student made an error she wouldn't public state 'OF COURSE NOT! YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG'.
Nor would she be a hippy and tell everyone not to laugh (although she WOULD kick the people who laughed out, thats disruptive) and pat you on the head saying in a warm voice "oh my little boy, that's ok, it's perfectly alright to mistake. We will buy you an ice cream after class to make you feel better."
She would tell you that you were wrong. She would correct you. She would spend a moment or two going over it with the class (sometimes if one person makes a mistake, a few others have made the same mistake as well). If you continuously made the mistake she would get harsher on you. Make you stay during lunch alone. Assign extra homework on that topic. But like I said she was never condescending or belittling. If you were wrong you were not made to feel like an idiot. Within reason of course. She wouldn't take ****, she knew enough to expect respect if she was giving it.
Now, guess which class had the better average? Classes were randomly assigned, so it wasn't as if the smarter students were placed in one class and the dumber in another. Which class had the better behaved students? Who was more fondly remembered?
I have to admit that the schooling system in countries like Belgium France or Germany are not as easy-going as in Australia or the United States. Both French and German people are often dismissed as antipathetic or arrogant, but usually also as intellectually strict and possessing a goof general knowledge (it depends on the person's educational level and socio-economic background, but if we compare people with a similar education...). One of the typical jokes about France is that it is a beautiful country, but it's a shame it is populated with French people. The truth is, it wouldn't be half what it is if the French were not so strict about cultural education (history, literature, architcture...), mathematics and sciences. France was the first Western country to develop the bullet-train (TGV), it heads the
European Space Agency, developed the faster passenger plane to this day with Britain (the Concorde), and recently played a big part in building the biggest passenger plane in the world (the new
Airbus A380). Why France ? Because France has some of the most difficult requirements for maths and sciences of any educational system worldwide (aling with Germany, the Benelux and maybe Scandinavia).
France is also the most touristical country in the world with as many annual visitors as inhabitants (60 million). Why ? Because the French have educated their people to respect their national heritage and make the most of it. France has probably more historians and more history-related publications per capita than any other country in the world. Again, that is because children are encouraged to like and learn about history since their childhood.
We can't compare well with Australia, but Japan, which has a millenary cultural heritage as well, has adopted a completely different attitude. Most Japanese don't care and don't know much about history. As a results there is little historical that remains in Japan, as the Japanese have constantly torn down "all these old buildings".
One thing I will say in HUGE criticism towards Australia is that our education system, even for those that do history in school all through, doesn't push enough of our historical past. It may have to do with our country be relatively 'peaceful' as far as histories go, with no huge upheavals or revolutions in our short history. But there isn't enough emphasis at all given to our heritage. Famously very few adults here can name our first Prime Minister (Edward Barton), know how damaging White Australia was, why the Eureka Stockade occured or what happened at Glenrowan in 1880.
We place far more emphasis in learning about OTHER nations histories. When we do study Aussie history is always the same stuff. Explorers, Captain Cook and the mistreatment of the Aboriginals.
As for geography, there are about 40 countries in Europe (depends if you count Monaco, the Vatican, etc. as countries) in an area about the same size as Australia. As it is impossible to understand history without knowing where some countries are and what kind of people live there (ethnic groups, languages...), or how the relief and climate may have influence the local culture, battles, or other events, geography is intrinsicly linked to history.
So if you ask me, yes it is important for Europeans to know well about history and geography, and that is why they are compulsory subjects. It is essential to understand how one's neighbours think (cultural differences) and where they come from (socially, politically, ethnically, etc.). That is the same in most of Asia, which is why I said that it was impossible to understand the current problems in the Middle East (Israel, Iraq, Iran... or
yesterday's terrorist attack in Turkey by Kurdish extremists) without knowing that Iranians, Jewish, Tukish, Kurdish and Arabic people all belonged to different ethnico-linguistic groups. It seems obvious to me because we were taught these things in the compulsory history and/or geography classes.
And yu make perfect sense, and I completely agree with you.
My Dad is part of a European 'cultural' group (not going to say which) that has some huge enemies from another 'cultural' group that for a very long time have lived in a rather small patch of land. It's things like that that obviously show the needfor geographical and historical education, at the very least to prevent past mistakes from happening again.
That is why I was surprised that you shouldn't know - but of course if these subjects are not in the compulsory curriculum in Australia, I understand. Maybe Australian people do not need to understand problems in the Middle East. It's so far away, they don't need to care... and it's not like Australia had troops in Iraq or something [sarcastic tone]. It reminds me of Japanese people; everytime something is happening in the world, they go like "nande sonna koto okorun daro ?" (why do such things happen ?), because they don't have the slightest idea of what's going on or about the country's background.
I dunno, honestly, I think the Iranian thing would be common enough knowledge for the older people here because of the conflict with Iraq in the 1980's. However at the time I was 6 odd years old. I went through high school at a time when the middle east was 'somewhat' quiet. Therefore the education about that area wasn't as topical and therefore not studied much. I do know that my friends doing history spent a lot of time on the Kashmir conflict, and the fall of Apartheid in Sotuh Africa and a LOT of time studying South East Asian modern history.
I really don't think Aussies care as little as Japanese do, so that comparison isn't valid. We have a huge interest in discussing world events, politics and the like and the media spends a lot of time informing those who want to know about what they should know.
As it was I have never really thought much abour Iran. Its never been a country on my radar so to speak. Not because of ignorance, or because its far away. Just simply because... it hasn't. So even if I learnt about it back in school, I may very well have asked the same question.
To come back to your original question "which education system is better, one that emphasize knowledge, or one that emphasises interpersonal relations. Of course both are important. But the main purpose of school is to learn and understand the world we live in. University takes care of creating specialists to find a job, but school should give the necessary knowledge to be part of society, which includes understanding one's country's own past, one's neighbours and the world we live in. There is no good excuse not to care about that, except if one wants to become a hermit.
You're assuming again. You assume a lot for one so enlightened. You seem to think that because one didn't chose a subject in high school that they don't care. That for some reason, because one didn't study geography that they don't care about the rest of the world. By your own reasoning, one who didn't study Sport in school can not possibly be interested in sports. Because I lacked the knowledge that Iranians aren't Arabian, because I didn't study history or geography in school, you have incorrectly assumed that I don't care, or that my peers and I lack a general knowledge.
Thats is EXCEEDINGLY assumptive and is this that leads to the perception Europeans are Arrogant beyond a fault.
The "island mentality" for Australia or Japan is outdated in this age of international communication and globalisation. Japanese people are usually stunned when the Koreans or Chinese protest against their history textbooks or war apologies. Why ? Because they don't learn about that part of history (that's what the protests are about). They may say they don't need China and Korea and can live a perfectly happy life without thinking about them or what their elders did to them 60 years ago.
Even in the history that I did study, there were never any punches pulled in terms of Australias mistakes in the past. There is a lot of argument for example that our education system is way too critical of our treatment of the Aboriginal people. I don't believe this is the case. We ****** up royally in our dealings with Australian Indigenous people and we MUST know about that. Ditto for our dealings with the rest of the world and ditto for the actions of the British Empire. I think its the extremely critical nature of our Historical and Geographical studies that makes us not respect our history in Australia. How can we be proud when we are taught to be ashamed of what we have done?
Sidenote. A I understand it, apparantly now in Australia some schools have three subjects.
Geography
History and
Studies of Society.
SoS is a subject more aimed at learning about cultures, Geography is aimed at places and History is the past.
That is the ostrich policy (hehe, another connection with Australia, well "Emu policy" should I say
).
Hehe, Emus don't put their head in the sand.
It's not by not caring about one's neighbours that the problems with be solved. Nowadays it is not even about neighbours but any country in the world - as al-Qaeda terrorists remind us. If most people in a country don't understand why they are the target of terrorist attacks, then the chances are that their government has not taught them properly about it - at school or via the media, which is school for adults.
Theres been considerable attention paid in recent years to Al Qaeda and their motivation in Australia via the media and from what I gather schools, especially in the aforementioned SoS.
In Australia, I was amazed to see that in many cities the TV news were mainly limted to Australia, with just a brief outline of the few major events in the world (some local channels, not at all). Doesn't that match with the lack of importance attached to the world (history & geography) at school ?
Yes and no. You bought up a global village. In making a comfortable village doesn't each person need to have a well maintained house? Its all well and good to worry about the neighbours or the people down the street, but you would do well keeping a close eye on your own garden.
Problem with Aussie TV news bulletins is the majority are 30 minutes long and commercial. Between news, sport and weather, with ad breaks, theres not much time to get involved on any news item. Plus the controlling interest of the Packers and Murdochs. Network news is frankly crap in Australia and is becoming increasingly tabloid.
An informed person here watches ABC and SBS. Both of which spend a lot of time talking about issues here and abroad. The news bulletins are longer. We have the 7:30 report which is primarily Current Affairs for local issues, and Foreign Correspondant, an excellent programme covering International news. Theres Behind the News, a bi-weekly show that explains current news issues for younger people. This is shown a lot in History, Geography AND English classes. SBS is an entire network aimed at international content.
In my school, usually failing a class meant repeating a year if it was a major subject (from 4h/week), with possible exceptions if the grades in other subject were outstanding or if the person failed the exams due to medical or personal reasons (divorce or death in the family, etc.), but the average grades in small tests during the year were good.
In a case liket aht, odds are the student could apply for special circumstance hearings. If the reasons were sound what would likely happen is that results of the 'offending' exam or term would be ignored, or the student would go to summer classes before uni began.
In my state in Australia anyway, for the final two years of school, major exams are done every 6 months for a subject and minor exams are done every three months between. so if a student was consistantly good except for one term, thats when SC comes in.
Another major difference is that someone who has repeated a year has little chance to go to university or even get a good job afterward. So nobody repeats a year voluntarily.
Which somewhat neagtes the point of repeating does it not? A repeating student has no risk to their future IF they pass everything the second time round, nor do employers care. In fact its becoming increasingly encouraged, or so I've heard.
However in my experience people who repeat usually do worse than the year before, likely because they are treated terribly by other students.
In my case because I failed Chemistry in 11th grade and changed to Earth Science. That screwed my initial plans to enter university. However instead of repeating a whole year of school, I entered university on a different course with similar subjects and upgraded after a year. Much better.