Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
7 subjects that should be taught in U.S. schools
These seven subjects don't teach toward the test, but they will help students lead happier, healthier, and smarter lives.
- Too often, schools teach toward tests that measure IQ and academic aptitude, not other life-critical skills and drives.
- Only 17 states require high school students to take a personal finance class, despite how vital such knowledge is to future security.
- From religion to behavioral science, we detail seven subjects that should be taught in all U.S. schools.
As the saying goes, school prepares students for life, and the current U.S. system teaches many life-critical skills, chiefly reading, writing, and arithmetic. But parse a standard course curriculum, and it appears that focus has shifted from life to something more in line with a college course in algebra or Romanticism.
Don't get us wrong. The quadratic equation is intellectually engaging. Keats's poetry is as haunting as it is beautiful. And the merits of liberal education are undervalued in our society.
But contemporary teachers are often forced to teach to the test, which measures IQ and academic ability but fosters neither drive nor social skills. We encounter the mathematics of a nutrition label more frequently than we solve for x. And "Beauty is truth, truth beauty" may not be the most helpful sentiment when everyone must be responsible for fact-checking the information we share.
We need a new curriculum, one that improves students' lives, as well as their minds.
Only 17 states require high school students to take a personal finance class, and fewer than half require a course in economics. That's according to a 2018 survey by the Council for Economic Education.
This leaves many students woefully underprepared for this critical life skill and places the educational burden on parents. But parents may not be experts in the subject, just as they may not be experts in governance or cellular biology.
Another survey — this one from FINRA — found that only 34 percent of U.S. adults could answer four of five questions on basic financial literacy correctly.
"Most Americans aren't fluent in the language of money," writes Tara Siegel Bernard, a New York Times personal finance reporter. "Yet we're expected to make big financial decisions as early as our teens — Should I take on thousands of dollars of student debt? Should I buy a car? — even though most of us received no formal instruction on financial matters until it was too late."
We need knowledgeable teachers to teach students how to budget, plan for retirement, and parse financial documents. Before getting to college, students should know how to find their credit score, the difference between a variable and fixed interest rate, and why paying only the minimum on your credit card bill is just a bad idea.
Employment and networking
Why do 75 percent of resumes never reach human eyes? If a hiring manager does look at your resume, how do you optimize it to match common eye-scan reading patterns? What goes on a cover letter? What's the STAR method, and what do you do after an interview?
Too many people enter the job hunt with a vague sense of direction. They learn the answers to the above questions through trial and error or by a piecemeal self-study. To give students the boost they need, job-finding and networking skills should be comprehensively taught at the high school level.
Instead, we should teach students how to write a resume and cover letter. Teach them the importance of social and professional networking and give them the tools to make those connections. And maybe remind them that that social media post will probably be seen by the hiring manager googling your name. Luckily, those can be deleted.
Religion should be mandatory in schools, but not in the way the U.S. currently goes about it. Schools should not make prayer compulsory. Creationism should not be taught as a viable alternative to evolution. And meditation should be taught as a calming mental exercise, not a path to enlightenment.
"Teaching about world religions is the better approach, because such instruction can help erase stereotypes of religious minorities and fill a pressing need to reduce ignorance about religion," writes Linda K. Wertheimer, author of Faith Ed, Teaching About Religion in an Age of Intolerance, in an op-ed.
In her op-ed, she cites Pew's 2010 "U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey." It showed that, on average, Americans could only answer 16 of 32 questions about world religions. Interestingly, atheists and agnostics averaged the most correct answers (20.9).
Instead, high school students should study world religions like anthropologists. They should read religious myths and history, understand tenets, and explore how contemporary practitioners engage with their religion through ceremony and custom.
Crucially, such classes should also teach the distinction between personal and communal religious convictions and how religious interpretation has evolved over the centuries.
About half of U.S. adults will experience a mental illness in their lifetime. Most of those will surface between the ages of 14 and 24. Like in finances, people will need to make decisions regarding their mental health young, and if not properly prepared, that decision may damage their wellbeing and relationships.
"We teach [students] how to detect the signs of cancer and how to avoid accidents, but we don't teach them how to recognize the symptoms of mental illness," Dustin Verga, a high school health teacher, told Stateline. "It's a shame because, like cancer, mental health treatment is much more effective if the disease is caught early."
Mental health classes would focus on developing practical mental wellbeing skills. Students would be introduced to methods of self-reflection and emotional assessment. They would practice techniques for effectively dealing with intense emotions such as stress, anger, and sadness. And they start a daily meditation practice, which science has shown offers a bevy of emotional and development benefits.
These classes could also help destigmatize mental illness — although the U.S. is improving in this regard, barriers continue to prevent many Americans from seeking the care they need. They could impart knowledge about mental illnesses and substance abuse, introduce the principles of cognitive behavior therapy, and explain how to access the available avenues of care.
We must also prepare students to understand their minds better. Behavioral science can help students understand what motivates them, why they make the decisions they do, and how to adjust habits to adjust their lives' trajectories toward their goals. And because behavioral science teaches students about their minds, they can use its tools to learn better ways to learn.
Conversely, such classes would also equip students with the knowledge of just how faulty their reasoning minds are. Not just students. All the people.
Students would learn about heuristics and biases — mental shortcuts that allow us to make judgments quickly and solve problems quickly but not accurately. They would better learn to recognize groupthink, loss aversion, and sunk cost situations. And they would better recognize the traps and tricks used by advertisers and politicians to direct their thinking and consumption.
Few children will grow up to be architects. That much is true. But grade school students can derive many useful academic and life lessons through the study of architectural design.
At its heart, architecture is about problem-solving. Students are provided a goal and materials, and they must use those materials to reach said goal. There isn't a single correct answer, either. Students must use their creativity to solve problems, leading to many valid approaches and even connecting STEM to the arts.
"With design, no solution is 100-percent right or wrong," Vicky Chan, founder of the voluntary organization Architecture for Children, said in the interview. "It's not like solving a mathematical problem. In sport, you can teach team spirit, but at the end of the day, it's a competition and it boils down to winning and losing. But in design, there is no absolute answer, and it's very much like in real life."
Architecture branches into other lesson plans as well. When Chan teaches architecture, she uses it to imbue students with the principles of sustainability, but the class could also introduce students to urban planning and real-world mathematics.
Video game design
Again, most people won't become game designers. But like architecture, video game design harbors many furtive lessons that connect to a wide range of careers.
The hard skills taught will be appraised highly in the coming decades. Programming, graphic development, and a capacity to learn new platforms and computational skills. Dig deeper though, and you'll see a bevy of soft skills being fostered, too. Video game design develops analytical, problem-solving, and critical-thinking skills. It requires teamwork and effective division of labor. And it combines storytelling and artistic creativity with STEM.
Students will need to expand their growth mindsets to succeed, but the nature of video games will also ask them to create methods to enlarge players' growth mindsets, too. As Jane McGonigal, a senior researcher at the Institute for the Future, told Big Think in an interview:
Industry research shows that gamers actually spend 80 percent of the time failing when they're playing their favorite games. Four out of five times they don't finish the mission, they don't level up, they don't get the score they want – they have to keep trying. And having that resilience in the face of failure is definitely a gamer quality – that we are able to learn from our mistakes, that we are willing to try again.
In this light, a video game design class doesn't simply teach students a subject. It teaches them how to effectively set goals and plan systems that reward effort to those goals.
Rethinking the 21st-century curriculum
As Jeffrey J. Selingo writes for the Harvard Business Review: "For decades, the college degree had been the strongest signal of job readiness. Today there is a lot of noise interfering with that signal, and employers question whether a traditional undergraduate education arms students with the soft skills needed in the workplace."
These seven represent subjects that we believe will help students develop soft skills, job readiness, and life-healthy habits. They aren't meant to replace traditional subjects but update educational careers to the 21st-century standard.
- Should cognitive behavioral therapy be taught in school? - Big Think ›
- 5 life skills we need to teach in school - Big Think ›
- Should architecture be taught in grade school? - Big Think ›
- The key to student engagement? Make them feel valued. - Big Think ›
- Post-COVID-19 education: What should be on the curriculum? - Big Think ›
The finding is remarkably similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency.
- Recent studies asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers.
- The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness, while attractive people underrate their looks.
- Why this happens is unclear, but it doesn't seem to be due to a general inability to judge attractiveness.
There's no shortage of disparities between attractive and unattractive people. Studies show that the best-looking among us tend to have an easier time making money, receiving help, avoiding punishment, and being perceived as competent. (Sure, research also suggests beautiful people have shorter relationships, but they also have more sexual partners, and more options for romantic relationships. So call it a wash.)
Now, new research reveals another disparity: Unattractive people seem less able to accurately judge their own attractiveness, and they tend to overestimate their looks. In contrast, beautiful people tend to rate themselves more accurately. If anything, they underestimate their attractiveness.
The research, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, involved six studies that asked participants to rate the attractiveness of themselves and other participants, who were strangers. The studies also asked participants to predict how others might rate them.
In the first study, lead author Tobias Greitemeyer found that the participants who were most likely to overestimate their attractiveness were among the least attractive people in the study, based on average ratings.
Ratings of subjective attractiveness as a function of the participant's objective attractiveness (Study 1)
"Overall, unattractive participants judged themselves to be of about average attractiveness and they showed very little awareness that strangers do not share this view. In contrast, attractive participants had more insights into how attractive they actually are. [...] It thus appears that unattractive people maintain illusory self‐perceptions of their attractiveness, whereas attractive people's self‐views are more grounded in reality."
Why do unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness? Could it be because they want to maintain a positive self-image, so they delude themselves? After all, previous research has shown that people tend to discredit or "forget" negative social feedback, which seems to help protect a sense of self-worth.
To find out, Greitemeyer conducted a study that aimed to put participants in a positive, non-defensive mindset before rating attractiveness. He did that by asking participants questions that affirmed parts of their personality that had nothing to do with physical appearance, such as: "Have you ever been generous and selfless to another person?" Yet, this didn't change how participants rated themselves, suggesting that unattractive people aren't overestimating their looks out of defensiveness.
The studies kept yielding the same finding: unattractive people overestimate their attractiveness. Does that bias sound familiar? If so, you might be thinking of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetent people tend to overestimate their own competency. Why? Because they lack the metacognitive skills needed to discern their own shortcomings.
Greitemeyer found that unattractive people were worse at differentiating between attractive and unattractive people. But the finding that unattractive people may have different beauty ideals (or, more plainly, weaker ability to judge attractiveness) did "not have an impact on how they perceive themselves."
In short, it remains a mystery exactly why unattractive people overestimate their looks. Greitemeyer concluded that, while most people are decent at judging the attractiveness of others, "it appears that those who are unattractive do not know that they are unattractive."
Unattractive people aren't completely unaware
The results of one study suggested that unattractive people aren't completely in the dark about their looks. In the study, unattractive people were shown a set of photos of highly attractive and unattractive people, and they were asked to select photos of people with comparable attractiveness. Most unattractive people chose to compare themselves with similarly unattractive people.
"The finding that unattractive participants selected unattractive stimulus persons with whom they would compare their attractiveness to suggests that they may have an inkling that they are less attractive than they want it to be," Greitemeyer wrote.
Every star we can see, including our sun, was born in one of these violent clouds.
This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink.
An international team of astronomers has conducted the biggest survey of stellar nurseries to date, charting more than 100,000 star-birthing regions across our corner of the universe.
Stellar nurseries: Outer space is filled with clouds of dust and gas called nebulae. In some of these nebulae, gravity will pull the dust and gas into clumps that eventually get so big, they collapse on themselves — and a star is born.
These star-birthing nebulae are known as stellar nurseries.
The challenge: Stars are a key part of the universe — they lead to the formation of planets and produce the elements needed to create life as we know it. A better understanding of stars, then, means a better understanding of the universe — but there's still a lot we don't know about star formation.
This is partly because it's hard to see what's going on in stellar nurseries — the clouds of dust obscure optical telescopes' view — and also because there are just so many of them that it's hard to know what the average nursery is like.
The survey: The astronomers conducted their survey of stellar nurseries using the massive ALMA telescope array in Chile. Because ALMA is a radio telescope, it captures the radio waves emanating from celestial objects, rather than the light.
"The new thing ... is that we can use ALMA to take pictures of many galaxies, and these pictures are as sharp and detailed as those taken by optical telescopes," Jiayi Sun, an Ohio State University (OSU) researcher, said in a press release.
"This just hasn't been possible before."
Over the course of the five-year survey, the group was able to chart more than 100,000 stellar nurseries across more than 90 nearby galaxies, expanding the amount of available data on the celestial objects tenfold, according to OSU researcher Adam Leroy.
New insights: The survey is already yielding new insights into stellar nurseries, including the fact that they appear to be more diverse than previously thought.
"For a long time, conventional wisdom among astronomers was that all stellar nurseries looked more or less the same," Sun said. "But with this survey we can see that this is really not the case."
"While there are some similarities, the nature and appearance of these nurseries change within and among galaxies," he continued, "just like cities or trees may vary in important ways as you go from place to place across the world."
Astronomers have also learned from the survey that stellar nurseries aren't particularly efficient at producing stars and tend to live for only 10 to 30 million years, which isn't very long on a universal scale.
Looking ahead: Data from the survey is now publicly available, so expect to see other researchers using it to make their own observations about stellar nurseries in the future.
"We have an incredible dataset here that will continue to be useful," Leroy said. "This is really a new view of galaxies and we expect to be learning from it for years to come."
Tiny specks of space debris can move faster than bullets and cause way more damage. Cleaning it up is imperative.
- NASA estimates that more than 500,000 pieces of space trash larger than a marble are currently in orbit. Estimates exceed 128 million pieces when factoring in smaller pieces from collisions. At 17,500 MPH, even a paint chip can cause serious damage.
- To prevent this untrackable space debris from taking out satellites and putting astronauts in danger, scientists have been working on ways to retrieve large objects before they collide and create more problems.
- The team at Clearspace, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, is on a mission to capture one such object using an autonomous spacecraft with claw-like arms. It's an expensive and very tricky mission, but one that could have a major impact on the future of space exploration.
This is the first episode of Just Might Work, an original series by Freethink, focused on surprising solutions to our biggest problems.
Catch more Just Might Work episodes on their channel: https://www.freethink.com/shows/just-might-work