Rich Dad/Poor Dad - Education

[Motokid]

Prophesy

In Kiyosaki's Prophesy he also mentions that when the baby boomers start retiring in masses, and thier 401k's start systematically selling stock to pay these retirees money to live on, the stock market will begin a decline that will shake the very foundation of this country.

He questions the "go to school, get a good job with a big company" ideaolgy that I at least grew up on.

He also questions why they do not teach how to invest money, what interest is, how it can help you or hurt you, what assets are and what liabilities are....

 

[RitalinKid]

I wish I would've seen this forum earlier. I agree with a lot of what's being said here. For me, high school was a waste of time. It was just regurgitation; read this and spit it back out. However, college was an actual learning experience. I learned how to learn, but not until I started working did I learn how to deal with people and stressful situations better.

I have to say I feel like a system where people are split up sounds great, but I don't know how it would work. In my opinion, you're too young to make decisions when they need to be made, and I know plenty of people who made excellent grades that wanted to nothing more than work in a factory or work on cars for a living. I guess my question is this: how and when and what criteria would you use to start splitting kids up into groups (the college-bound or the workforce bound)? I don't see grades as the most important factor in judging a person's wits or abilities, but how do you quantify attitude, personality and leadership skills? More importantly, how do you instill or teach "good" attitudes and leadership skills? I think that may be a job for the home. It may require community involvement. Just a thought. ???

As for standardized tests, everyone hates them, and almost everyone claims that they are in some way biased. However, the people that I know that always did the best were the people that had the ability to reason exceptionally well, not just regurgitate the bold print from a text book. Did anyone else have the same experience?

I'm a history nut, and after I took real history classes at university, I was disappointed that the class is just memorization in high school. History is about change, how things changed and why they changed. That's way more important than what year the Magna Carta was signed, but it's not taught that way. History is about human nature and why we're all where we are today. I realize that I'm fascinated by our world though, and not everyone is.

 

[Motokid]

Another

Another point that is made by Kiyosaki is that for some reason when a person shows a specific strength in some area, we do not do everything to take advantage of that strength. Instead, and to the contrary, we focus on the areas that peson is weakest in and try to work on getting those areas stronger.

Does that make sense?

I understand that "well rounded" is a good concept, but at some point in a persons life all cylinders should start focusing on a persons strengths to get the best out of them.

 

[jenn]

I wish I would've seen this forum earlier. I agree with a lot of what's being said here......
. In my opinion, you're too young to make decisions when they need to be made, and I know plenty of people who made excellent grades that wanted to nothing more than work in a factory or work on cars for a living. ..... I don't see grades as the most important factor in judging a person's wits or abilities, but how do you quantify attitude, personality and leadership skills?.......... I think that may be a job for the home. It may require community involvement. Just a thought. ???

.

i agree with everything said here. i have read rich dad poor dad and i really liked it. i felt it was eye opening in terms of how we are all taught about money and finances, and the idea that if we just work hard we can get a good job and make nice money and have a nice house and blah blah blah. i think the author is trying to convey that there is another way than the ones our parents were taught and in turn taught us.


as to the education system, here in canada it is a mess. a disaster. you have 35 kids in a class, 7 of which have special needs and developmental problems. maybe you have a teacher's aid maybe you don't. the teacher's primary goal is crowd control, and getting the curriculum taught. the government seem to keep changing how the kids are to be graded and no one seems to understand it. it is a nightmare for parents and teachers alike and i admire and respect those willing to take on the task.

we have a 4 year old heading into school soon. we have looked into different options however financially, private school is not a possibility. the best i can do as a parent is be super involved, pick up the slack, fill in any gaps and encourage my son in the areas he is proficient in. my husband was not great at school. he struggled with english and languages. sciences and computers were fun and challenging for him and so now he is an IT guy, but there was so much pressure on him to improve in those other areas that he still struggles with feeling "not smart". as long as our kids are doing their best, and if that happens to be a 55%, then great. i want them to enjoy learning and not feel stupid because they do not fit the status quo.

as to the measure of ones success, if you are rich but unhappy, or poor and happier than a pig shit, then who is to say who is the most successful.

 

[novella]

Another point that is made by Kiyosaki is that for some reason when a person shows a specific strength in some area, we do not do everything to take advantage of that strength. Instead, and to the contrary, we focus on the areas that peson is weakest in and try to work on getting those areas stronger.

Again, this is not entirely true and is far more complex than stated.

For instance, because of social pressures most girls move away from maths and sciences around age 12-13 even if they show great potential earlier. They will get lower grades and say they aren't interested. Shouldn't they be coaxed through that period so that they still have a chance at math and science careers when they wise up, around 16 and 17?

Similarly, kids who get no academic support at home are often late bloomers. They only discover their talents later on. How and when should a school determine their strengths.


My experience with the public school system has been really positive so far (speaking from parental experience, not my own 70s wastrel past). My kid's teachers are engaged, the classes are all around 20 kids, and the school really emphasizes success. It's part of the culture, and a lot of kids really respond to it.


But I have to say that every kid I know who is doing well and growing intellectually and creatively has a supportive environment at home.

It seems to me that this author is pretty outdated. Lots of these ideas about early college, team learning (and team teaching to integrate subjects), small class size, positive reinforcement, specialized smaller high schools, etc. are pretty new and have just been implemented in the past 5-10 years. I'm not in a particularly progressive part of the world, but happen to have a rural school district that is small enough to accept change quickly.

 

[Motokid]

Delaware - USA

Here's a brief sample of the ongoing debate happening within our educational system in my state.

FYI - Seniors graduate in 12th grade (18 years old average)

Most of the testing is multiple choice. Enjoy....

08/16/2004
This year's public high school seniors are in a unique position: Their diplomas may be rated basic, standard or distinguished, solely based on the high-stakes standardized tests they took nearly two years ago in 10th grade.

Those tests are the three high-stakes tests 10th-graders must take: math, reading and writing. The rating on the diploma, descending from distinguished to standard to basic, depends on the scores in each of those subjects, weighted in a formula devised by the state Department of Education.

In April, a News Journal analysis of the test scores for last year's seniors showed that when income and race were considered together, 83 percent of low-income black students would have received a basic diploma, along with 76 percent of low-income Hispanic students and 60 percent of low-income white students. About 52 percent of all students would have received a basic diploma.

 

[novella]

A student can retake that test at any time, even after graduation, and upgrade the diploma.

Which means that a senior or a graduate is exceeding 10th-grade standards in order to get one of the higher-skill diplomas.

Is that unfair?

Question is, which student would be most encouraged to retake the test, a middling student with parental support or a failing student with no support? It is exactly at the intersection between family and school that these kinds of testing systems fail.

But how do you make it more fair without serious intervention and mentoring?

 

[Motokid]

about labeling

It's not about how many times you can take a test.

It's about labeling every child based on the results of one standardized test.
How can that be fair?

Teachers are now having to base their entire lesson plan on getting those test scores raised. The kids are judged, the teachers are judged, the schools are judged and the system as a whole is judged on the results from a standardized test.

Every kid starts taking these tests in 3rs grade.

If you suck at taking these kinds of tests you are doomed as far as getting labeled as something you really might not be.

Like this poor kid:

"xxxx's daughter is an honor student but, despite taking the math test twice, has not scored high enough to receive more than a basic diploma next year. The three types of diplomas are basic, standard and distinguished; they were adopted by the Legislature in 2000.

But with more than 50 percent of graduates likely to receive only basic diplomas and some school superintendents claiming that the math tests are flawed, the House last week passed and sent to the Senate a bill to put a moratorium on the tiered system, except in the distinguished category for students with exceptionally high test scores."

Is the test flawed, or is the teaching system flawed, or is the grading system used to determine she was an honor student flawed?

 

[novella]

Gosh, Moto, this is the oldest debate in the book.

Academic performance has to be assessed somehow. I guess the key words there are "academic performance." It seems clear to me that academic performance is not measured by how much homework you do or whether you work well with others, though those things do inform school grades to a very large extent (more than 50% of grade many times).

Have you read the recent studies about how kids whose education focused on high self-esteem (despite poor academic performance) have much less ambition and unrealistically optimistic ideas about their own performance, whether on tests or in class or something else?


Having survived the alternative-schools movement of the 70s, in which kids designed their own curricula, worked at internships, "rapped" about their day with groovy mentors, and were assessed on performance in the "real world," I can tell you that system was bogus and spewed out a load of pot-smoking confused people who had no idea what they were doing at any level.

What is the downside of doing poorly on standardized tests?

College admissions offices these days don't even weigh the SATs or other standardized tests very heavily. They've found that the scores are so high, compared with what they were 20 years ago, that it's not a distinguishing element (and surmise that the tests are too easy) and also that high test scores are not at all predictive of college performance. The highest scorers are often the most socially problemmatic students.

These days college admissions rely heavily on personal interviews, essays, experience, references, breadth of interests, etc. An intelligent, personable, ambitious kid who does poorly on tests can be a very attractive prospect.

So, what is the big deal? Do you think a kid looking for a post highschool job has to worry about having a "basic" degree?

 

[Motokid]

true

“Academic performance has to be assessed somehow…”

True. No arguement there. Does that mean that the way it’s being done now is the best way? As far as I’m concerned, not in my state.

“College admissions offices these days don't even weigh the SATs or other standardized tests very heavily. They've found that the scores are so high, compared with what they were 20 years ago, that it's not a distinguishing element (and surmise that the tests are too easy) and also that high test scores are not at all predictive of college performance. The highest scorers are often the most socially problemmatic students.”

Precisely my point. There’s something wrong with the system.

Isn’t the goal for most post high-school kids to go on to college? That “basic” diploma from high school could really change the way some schools look at the kid. The “basic” kid might never make it to the interview.

If kids are honor roll in class, but are well below average on tests, doesn't that suggest something is wrong with the system? Either the class grades are wrong, or the tests are wrong. Which one does the kid the most damage?
Either way they may be getting "labeled" for something they are not.

 

[novella]

“Academic performance has to be assessed somehow…”

True. No arguement there. Does that mean that the way it’s being done now is the best way? As far as I’m concerned, not in my state.

I don't understand. How do you think it should be measured if not by testing? A classroom grade is based on a lot of other things besides academic performance.

“College admissions offices these days don't even weigh the SATs or other standardized tests very heavily. They've found that the scores are so high, compared with what they were 20 years ago, that it's not a distinguishing element (and surmise that the tests are too easy) and also that high test scores are not at all predictive of college performance. The highest scorers are often the most socially problemmatic students.”

Precisely my point. There’s something wrong with the system.

Again, I don't understand. If the test score is only weighed as part of the admissions requirement, what's wrong with the system?

 

[Halo]

as to the education system, here in canada it is a mess. a disaster. you have 35 kids in a class, 7 of which have special needs and developmental problems. maybe you have a teacher's aid maybe you don't. the teacher's primary goal is crowd control, and getting the curriculum taught. the government seem to keep changing how the kids are to be graded and no one seems to understand it. it is a nightmare for parents and teachers alike and i admire and respect those willing to take on the task.

Are you sure you live in Canada? Because this sounds exactly the same as in Britain!

 

[RitalinKid]

I don't have time to weigh in right now, but my hat's off to you, novella and motokid, for not letting a great disussion become a nasty argument.

 

[Motokid]

today

Isn’t the roll of educating children to provide them with what they will need to become a productive, functional, and contributing part of society?

The point Kiyosaki makes is times have changed and are changing faster than ever before. What worked well for schools in the past, is no longer working today. You only need to look at how much debt the masses are carrying to see this fact.

 

[novella]

The point Kiyosaki makes is times have changed and are changing faster than ever before. What worked well for schools in the past, is no longer working today.

There's absolutely no evidence to support this statement. The percentages of kids who go to high school, who graduate HS, who go to college, and who graduate from college are all higher than ever.

The average standard of living is higher than ever, hence the level of personal debt. The same is true of European countries. Personal debt in England is far higher, because of high real-estate costs.

Look at the types and numbers of cars we own, the houses we build, the diversity and quality of the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the leisure time we have, the trips we take, etc. That's why we have debt. People now expect to live luxuriously and beyond their means. That doesn't mean they aree educated worse than their parents or grandparents were. It just means they are shortsighted and spoiled.

What makes you think education is in decline? If you factor in the diverse populations of immigrants who are successful in school, the breadth of material now covered in the curriculum, and the overall percentage of population who graduate, things are better than ever.

Where I live, right up until the 1950s lots of people went to one-room school houses, few went to college, most went straight back to their farms and started working, unless they went to war.

I'm not buying this argument at all. You can't measure educational success by a population's level of personal debt. By that measure, Papau New Guinea is a huge educational success story.

 

[Motokid]

????

Because common sence would say that the more education you have, the more money you should make. The more money you make the less debt you should carry. You argue more people are getting higher educations. Why then are people digging deeper and deeper financial holes for themselves.

But not only are people carrying larger and larger amounts of debt, so are governments on the local, state, and country level.

50 years ago the majority of families could survive on one income. Now two incomes does not cut it. This is progress?

 

[Motokid]

teachers

By the way. This is in no way a reflection of what I think of teachers. If there was ever a profession that deserved the salary that sports stars get it's teachers. They are heros in every sense of the word. Anybody who dedicates their lives to teaching is really a great, great person. At least most of them are great people. There are always exceptions to that rule too.

I am not attacking teachers.
I am not attacking teachers.

 

[novella]

Because common sence would say that the more education you have, the more money you should make. The more money you make the less debt you should carry.

This is completely illogical and unsupported by history and current reality.
The most educated people in the US are probably medical doctors, professional scientists, and university professors. Professors earn nothing, scientists earn okay professional salaries (their ideas are usually owned by the huge companies that support their research, or the gov't), and doctors salaries have been severly curtailed in the last 10 years by insurance issues.

Speculative real-estate developers make loads of money, mostly with little education. Corporate CEOs earn loads of money, and many can't write a decent letter, compose a speech, or install Windows on a computer.

I don't understand why you connect money-making with education. There's no evidence for it. "Common sense" doesn't dictate any kind of connection there, nor does reality show any. Nepotism is a far better indicator of whether one will make good money.

As to debt, the amount of debt a person carries is completely dependent not on their level of education or income but on their sense of entitlement.

You argue more people are getting higher educations.

This is a fact, not an argument.

Why then are people digging deeper and deeper financial holes for themselves.

Because, as I pointed out earlier, their expectations for standards of living are too high and their sense of entitlement is not in line with their means.

50 years ago the majority of families could survive on one income. Now two incomes does not cut it. This is progress?

50 years ago, people did not have media rooms, SUVs, tropical vacations, air travel. They did not expect to go to college. They did not think being able to eat in posh restaurants was a natural right. They did not get credit cards marketed to them nonstop. They did not eat as a hobby. They did not treat clothing as a disposable commodity. They did not go shopping when bored. They did not live to be 80. They did not view the teenage years as a great time to hang out and chill. They did not have to pay a huge portion of their incomes to be able to see a doctor occassionally.

Times have changed. Mostly times have gotten better.

 

[novella]

By the way. This is in no way a reflection of what I think of teachers. If there was ever a profession that deserved the salary that sports stars get it's teachers. They are heros in every sense of the word. Anybody who dedicates their lives to teaching is really a great, great person. At least most of them are great people. There are always exceptions to that rule too.

I am not attacking teachers.
I am not attacking teachers.

That's a good point. Also, good to point out that movie stars, music idols, and sports stars rake in the dough. How many of them have Masters degrees or PhDs, I wonder?

 

[Motokid]

also

I want to make clear that I am in no way, shape, or form trying to dump all the blame for all the worlds problems onto the educational system. Nor do I expect the educational system to fix all the problems. I also understand that just as important as a good school, and good teachers, one must have good parents that are involved in the entire process.

That said, there's no denying the declining math scores, the declining english scores, the declining science scores, and everything else. Kids are pushed thru schools whether they deserve it or not. It does not pay for schools to hold back students. That would show there are problems. A lot of the problems might reflect the huge numbers of kids living in single parent households. Does that let the system off the hook? Shouldn't the system be shifting and changing with the times? Doing whatever it needs to do to educate.

Colleges are lowering entrance requirements or they face losing enrollment. Kids with high levels of sports talent are let into prestigious schools with next to no academic requirements. I don't know that there are many people in America that would say that kids graduating from high school today are better prepared for life in the business world than they were 4 or 5 generations ago.