The required subjects for public schools need to be reworked.

Everyone should have to take a math class, but instead of having a week long lesson on how to calculate the nth term of a sequence, we could learn – as I mentioned previously – how to do taxes and balance check books. Also, in English, learning rhetorical strategies isn’t really something one would exercise in the real world. Yes, you’d be able to see what “tricks” were being used by the media to try to coerce, but it’s very unlikely that you’re going to have to explain the literary devices used in your performance review. “From that point on the electives you take are ones that you can choose and most of them are only required for 1 semester… high school though is meant to be broad enough to allow people to find something that could be their career choice. “To a certain degree, my opponent is correct about being able to choose electives, but neglects to mention that electives are required for high school students and that most are not one semester. Perhaps it varies from school to school slightly, but in my district it is required to have elective credits every year before you can graduate and more than one class if you want to be a Distinguished Graduate. “Bankers still need to learn math and Doctors still need to learn science. Both of these examples only cite very narrow examples of all the different information taught in public high schools which allow people to find their passion. ”Of course bakers need math, but even my pre-calculus teacher admitted that there is no real application of logarithms (which we were tested over) in any math or science field. I’m not saying that we don’t need math or science, but the things thought in each of them should actually have some real life value. In response to my statement: "but maybe only the kids interested in politics should be required to take government. "“That would require having kids make up their mind about their career at the age of 17 or 18. ”I wouldn’t even being to suggest to put that kind of stress on already stressed out kids, and perhaps I put it badly. But the school year is short, & perhaps instead of making kids – that, mind you, aren’t interested in politics – take government as a separate class, it could be addressed in history courses. The classes don’t need to be spectacularly long to be in depth or for students to grasp what happened and what it meant. Combining history with government would just mean the information is fresher in student’s heads making it clearer how what happened developed our government.2) “Schools can only teach children so much, parents often teach their kids a fair amount of stuff”Schools can only teach children so much because (books are different than real life, but that’s a different argument) they kill so much time on unnecessary stuff. More over, teachers are trained to teach, parents are not. I love my parents, but having a professional to tell me how to do something is much more reliable. “first aid is a very narrow subject to study for months and months. ”Knowing where the bone is isn’t as helpful as being able to mend it until help arrives. Also, first aid would need to teach you about any great variety of things, like what the symptoms of an asthma attack are or how to help someone having a seizure. It’s not going to be months of “put a band aid on the booboo and call 911” because there are a lot more areas that can be covered.3) “It is required that students take 3 to 4 years of the main subjects… everything else meanwhile is made up of many other classes that a student can pick if they find that class more appealing then the others in that category. “3 – 4 years is a long time for someone who’s only lived 16. The 4 core subjects are fundamental to life, but are still laced with superfluous lessons. And though you get to pick your electives, you are still required to take some (foreign language, PE, and fine arts count as graduation credits) making them required subjects. “It doesnt have to be spanish though, its any language you are interested in, Spanish is just the primary choice. Meanwhile running a mile a minute is something I dont know is actually required to graduate since you can take PE classes online now. .. .”I apologize, I wasn’t implying that it had to be Spanish, that was just an example and the class I actually took. Also, running a mile in 8 minutes was a grade in my class. So I don’t even vaguely understand how one would take an online physical education course. In response to my statement: "Just as an example, I've taken 4 years of Spanish and I can hardly hold a conversation"“Same here, but I knew enough to pass and I still hold a rough translation of words enough that it could pay off in the future. ”So did I, but that’s a perfect example of how misleading classes/exams are. You could put on your résumé that you took 4 years of Spanish, but when you get put in a situation where you have to translate you’d have a slightly better understanding that a child that watches Dora the Explorer. (By the way, I’m not addressing you specifically, that was a generalization. ) If it’s going to be a required subject, it should be thorough enough to be worth the time. “Fine arts though is one of those things where it can be considered passing just for trying… Photography, music, painting, designing, etc are all things you need only 1 or 2 years at and then your [sic] DONE. ”If you can get an A just for effort, what’s the point in taking the class? You wouldn’t be able to separate the greats from the not-so-greats like that and again someone might have an implied understanding that they don’t really have. And once again, 2 years is a long time when you presently only have 4 years of high school to use. “Pro starts out saying that high school is too career specific then pulls a 180 saying it teaches a lot of useless stuff. ”I examined both sides of the spectrum. Some things it teaches – my example of cosine, sine, & tangent and laws of motion – are too specific while some – logarithms and rhetorical analyses – are essentially unhelpful. The last part of my opponent’s argument is basically a recap, so I’ll do the same. Currently, high school is a contradiction to itself. My opponent mentions how high school is designed to be broad so students have a chance to change careers without having to start learning from scratch. That’s a valid point, but touching out other subjects (without testing over them) then offering the classes is different than saying “learn this or fail. ” Also, as far as electives go, you are given some choice, but not a whole lot, and once you’re in the class that last a year or more, there isn’t any really opportunity to reschedule if it’s not your dig. Basically, I must reiterate, it all boils down to practical application or entertainment. If you can’t use it in real life or it isn’t something you like to do, then why should you need it take it? School would be much more enjoyable and constructive (especially to the next generation of workers) if the subjects students are required to take to graduate were reworked.