Is 12 years of school really necessary? - why not cut it shorter? (Sep/25/2008 )
I sometimes really wish i was a president or had the power to change many things in my country. one of the first things i would do is to make school years much shorter, down to 9-10 years. I don't see any reason for teenagers to become 18 so that they can go to University. the new generation is much more clever and smarter than the old generations. new kids are more mature than old time kids.
I know that in some countries school time is less than 12 years, but what I'm trying to say is that the school system needs a complete change around the globe.
the same goes for higher education; I did my MSc in UK and graduated with distinction which is a high score in there and therefore I got shortlisted for an interview at Cancer Research UK in London for a PhD position, although I was a foreigner. Unfortunately I was rejected because of my age !!!! I was 26 and the maximum age they wanted was 27. In the end they got an Argentinian guy who was 23. But now when I think about it i realize they were right, I was old and the British system was very good.
are you sure there is any age descrimination here? you could sue them if that is the case.
Here (Germany) we have 13 years, and I found and find it okay. But some federal states change it to 12 and the students coming from there seem so young and untaught 
.
And, they award less HSMP points to those with 1 year less of schooling even if that were the standards in the country the one studied.
I think it is quite arrogant of you to say that "the new generation is much more clever and smarter than the old generations"!! Do you seriously think that people are actually getting more intelligent?
Schooling is more than learning the curriculum- it is also teaching you how to learn, teaching you how to interact with your peers, teaching you how to interact with authority figures (eg your teachers). And each year is designed at such a pace as to best suit the children of that age, taking into consideration how developed their brains etc are.
What makes you say that you were rejected for the PhD position because of you age!! Is that what they actually told you, or what you assumed because the younger guy got the position??
You must live in a great country; when I look at the kids here you know what the "no future" generation is....we have 12 or 13 years of school, depending on the type of school you choose and our first semesters are quite cluless what they want to do and only very few can tell you why they started biology and not psycology or history or ....
The most common answeres even of students who have already earned their BA is "I just liked flowers" or "I want to invent some substance to heal xyz and get rich quickly" or "I did not knew what else to do and I liked my biology teacher"
And I agree with the previous posters, did they really reject you because of your age or is it just what you think?
to lauralee:
yes, I do believe the new generations are getting smarter.
and yes they told me during the interview that I am old for them and they want someone younger.
to genehunter-1:
no I can not sue them because it was also written in the CRUK application form that the maximum age was 27.
'. the new generation is much more clever and smarter than the old generations.'
Maybe you didnt get the PhD because you made unfounded arrogant statements in your interview like those above.
Maybe you didnt get the PhD because you made unfounded arrogant statements in your interview like those above.
nope, it's a shame that YOU have PhD. idiot.
the life style now is much different from 50 years ago, kids are more open to media, movies, internet, etc. they learn more so they understand more.
You are correct that children are exposed to more resources these days so they have the opportunity to learn more stuff but that certainly does not make them more intelligent. Or does it ? How could we test such a thing ?
I dont have a PhD, I never wanted to do one.