# N vs. S: Is the school system failing Sensing types?



## ChristynJ (Mar 27, 2014)

While studying Myers-Briggs, I realized that the public school system might be designed for intuitive students, and therefore, might be failing sensing students. For example: 


> The majority of undergraduates are sensing students. Based on data from the Center for Applied Psychological Type (CAPT) between 56% and 72% of over 16,000 freshmen at three state universities were sensing students. Interestingly, almost 83% of national merit scholarship finalists and 92% of Rhodes Scholars were intuitive students.
> Student Learning and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator


Just as I guessed, it is the intuitive students who are excelling in our system and who are considered "smart." Since sensing types make up most of the population, this could be a major failing on the part of the school system. I used to tutor kids in a high school special education classroom. I know from interacting with those students that they were not "less intelligent" than the average student. They were just not being taught in a way they could understand. Looking back, I would probably type most of those students as sensing types. Similarly, I would type most of the kids in my honors classes as intuitives. 
The above article mentions that sensing students learn best by an Application-Theory-Application approach. I notice that whenever teachers used this approach I would become confused quickly. Fortunately for me, the more intuitive-friendly Theory-Application-Theory method is used most of the time by teachers. This is perhaps not so fortunate for the sensing types.
So, what do you think? Shouldn't we change the school system to avoid leaving sensing types out in the cold?


----------



## OutOfThisWorld (Nov 4, 2013)

I think the educational system is structured ineffectively due to the politics and self-interests that plague the schools. 

As a sensor, I can straight up say that I hated school. Hated it back then and hate it now. I find that the school is created in a way where it doesn't promote actual learning, rather, it's all about just shoving the information towards the students and hoping they learn it quickly. I dislike the fact that it is so fast-paced and that there is no real world application to it. 

I suppose intuitions understand the materials quickly due to the theoretical nature of the subjects, allowing them to map out all of the information already. Whereas I hate the textbook/concept approach. It's useless to me because it's just words and gets filtered out of my mind easily. If I can't apply it, it doesn't stick. Unfortunately for me, classes are often theory/concept based, which means a whole lot of suckage. 

Granted, I did okay in college, but that is due to me choosing the sciences, where all the information provided is primarily factual and could be visualized quite easily.


----------



## Daniel_James_Maher (Feb 11, 2013)

ChristynJ said:


> While studying Myers-Briggs, I realized that the public school system might be designed for intuitive students, and therefore, might be failing sensing students. For example:
> 
> 
> Just as I guessed, it is the intuitive students who are excelling in our system and who are considered "smart." Since sensing types make up most of the population, this could be a major failing on the part of the school system. I used to tutor kids in a high school special education classroom. I know from interacting with those students that they were not "less intelligent" than the average student. They were just not being taught in a way they could understand. Looking back, I would probably type most of those students as sensing types. Similarly, I would type most of the kids in my honors classes as intuitives.
> ...


I don't think the school system is likely to fail sensors at least until university. But I only have Australia to go by.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

ChristynJ said:


> While studying Myers-Briggs, I realized that the public school system might be designed for intuitive students, and therefore, might be failing sensing students. For example:
> 
> 
> Just as I guessed, it is the intuitive students who are excelling in our system and who are considered "smart." Since sensing types make up most of the population, this could be a major failing on the part of the school system. I used to tutor kids in a high school special education classroom. I know from interacting with those students that they were not "less intelligent" than the average student. They were just not being taught in a way they could understand. Looking back, I would probably type most of those students as sensing types. Similarly, I would type most of the kids in my honors classes as intuitives.
> ...


In a general sense, yes. But not as the article outlines. All that is really needed is for the teacher to establish relevance. Ironically, most of the high school and below grade level teachers are sensors, yet the majority of them fail in this most basic of tasks.


----------



## Almighty Malachi (Jan 4, 2013)

While I think that the school system in America is failing basically every student, I honestly don't understand this whole obsession with making subject matter in schools "applicable".

Is there really anything wrong with learning for the sake of learning? Why does everything have to be immediately relevant to someone's life? Political philosophy, for example, may not have a "practical application" for most people, but it would be tragedy for society if we just decided to stop teaching it and mankind would be worse off because of it. Likewise, the vast majority of students probably won't ever have to use higher-level mathematics in their daily lives, but it makes them a better person to be able to understand the mechanics of the universe around them and how we have come to interpret it. 

This just reinforces the idea that we have no interest in actually educating the populace; we just want them to be skilled enough to enter the labor force and mindlessly and quietly work until they die. Intellectual curiosity, creativity, and self-actualization are being stifled in favor of creating a society of worker bees. And *that's *why schools are failing students; God knows why all of these "reformers" actually want to exacerbate the issue instead of going in the opposite direction from where we currently are.


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

niss said:


> All that is really needed is for the teacher to establish relevance.


Sometimes the relevance stares people in the face, yet they cannot see it. Several years ago I was having a discussion about the school system with a contractor putting an addition on my home. At the very same time that he was checking the foundation forms for squareness using the 3-4-5 rule, he was spouting off about how horrible geometry was and how it had absolutely no relevance to his life and livelihood. I was waiting for Pythagoras himself to reach up from the excavated earth and choke him, lol.

To your point, though, maybe if his teacher had mentioned a practical application or two along the way to help him establish the relevance in his mind, he might have felt differently about his geometry classes.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

jcal said:


> Sometimes the relevance stares people in the face, yet they cannot see it. Several years ago I was having a discussion about the school system with a contractor putting an addition on my home. At the very same time that he was checking the foundation forms for squareness using the 3-4-5 rule, he was spouting off about how horrible geometry was and how it had absolutely no relevance to his life and livelihood. I was waiting for Pythagoras himself to reach up from the excavated earth and choke him, lol.
> 
> To your point, though, maybe if his teacher had mentioned a practical application or two along the way to help him establish the relevance in his mind, he might have felt differently about his geometry classes.


I've had a similar experience with geometry and trigonometry. Guys that took it in school and use it on a daily basis doing front end alignments will sit at lunch and complain about the wasted time studying such things in school.


----------



## OutOfThisWorld (Nov 4, 2013)

Almighty Malachi said:


> While I think that the school system in America is failing basically every student, I honestly don't understand this whole obsession with making subject matter in schools "applicable".
> 
> Is there really anything wrong with learning for the sake of learning? Why does everything have to be immediately relevant to someone's life? Political philosophy, for example, may not have a "practical application" for most people, but it would be tragedy for society if we just decided to stop teaching it and mankind would be worse off because of it. Likewise, the vast majority of students probably won't ever have to use higher-level mathematics in their daily lives, but it makes them a better person to be able to understand the mechanics of the universe around them and how we have come to interpret it.
> 
> This just reinforces the idea that we have no interest in actually educating the populace; we just want them to be skilled enough to enter the labor force and mindlessly and quietly work until they die. Intellectual curiosity, creativity, and self-actualization are being stifled in favor of creating a society of worker bees. And *that's *why schools are failing students; God knows why all of these "reformers" actually want to exacerbate the issue instead of going in the opposite direction from where we currently are.


This is going to deviate from the topic at hand, but I'll respond because it's a good point to think about.

The answer: Because society doesn't reward learning for the sake of learning. Society does not reward those who embrace the intellectual curiosity, creativity, and so on. Society does not reward those who follow their passions very well if said passions deviate from the current market. 

Why do you think the Social Sciences and Humanities division is always looked down upon? That is because society place little value in those types of courses. It's beneficial for society to retain them, but from a $$$-perspective, it's useless. 

In our world today, it's all about money. People need money to survive. And if they want to raise families, they need even more money to support the little ones. It comes down to choice. Am I going to follow my passion and pursue something that interests me, even though it may place a burden on those that rely on me? Or do I choose something that provides that money I desperately need at the cost of expansion of mind, ideas, and what have you? 

Jobs are usually mundane and repetitive. People usually make the choice of doing mindless work rather than the innovative things because it's safe. Unless you were in a designer in tech, there are not many jobs out there that allows one to be creative that makes a decent paycheck. 

Personally, even though I have a science background, I took religious, art, sociology, philosophical, psychological, and communicative courses outside of my degree requirements because I valued the ideas and loved expanding my mind. However, I am one of the few exceptions because I had the opportunity to do so. Many people are not that lucky. They do not have the luxury to do that because they need to get their degrees in order to land an okay paying job to support themselves and their families. 

Also, one has to realize that many people are unable to see value in learning for the sake of learning due to their upbringing. Or they lack the opportunities and time to do so. An average person is going to come back from home after a long day of classes or work and the last thing they are going to think to themselves is, "Gee, let's expand my mind and intellect and learn something new today!". No, they are going to flop on bed to relax or veg out in front of the tv or hang out with people they care about. If they got children, then all the energy and time is going to be on raising them. Rinse and repeat and that is your entire life right there. 

If one wants to make learning for the sake of learning a priority, then there should be more emphasis on it. However, the first programs that get cut are usually the Social Sciences/Humanities ones. Also, give people more time to pursue their interests and passions. Seriously, certain countries (like America and Japan) have populations that work a lot more hours per week in comparison to other countries.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

Nope. I'm a sensor and I've done great in education. Those statistics are probably lies, I have a hard time believing the numbers are that high, anything you find about that on the internet is likely to be biased against sensors and trying to make them look stupid because the majority of people on the internet are intuitives.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

I didn't care? School was something to be done. It wasn't a matter of whether it failed me-- I couldn't fail it. There are things I want from life and getting through school was and is part of the process.

Do I wish schools (especially colleges) taught more practical things? Absolutely. It's amazing how impractical a lot of university knowledge is when you step into the workforce. Unless you get a few specific kinds of degrees, have a strong network, or have great internships, current colleges fail most of their graduates. 

That being said, blame on the colleges and the school system only goes so far. At the end of the day, a person must take responsibility for how they managed their life.


----------



## Draki (Apr 4, 2014)

My school system (Germany) was pure routine and memorisation, so I guess it's for SJs. Horror for me as an INTP. College is better now.
However I agree that it was sometimes very theoretical and not very hands-on which is probabaly bad for S types.


----------



## Killionaire (Oct 13, 2009)

WTF I always thought K-12 schools are basically geared towards sensors. I think you're way off base. Look at how they have sports teams that glorify and reward sensors. They have very little or nothing to glorify intuitors. I think sports teams consist almost entirely of sensors. In K-12 you mostly memorize facts and repeat them on tests. Sensors generally utilize fact memorization than more than intuitors do. Where are the K-12 classes that encourage imagination, exploration of new ideas, and creativity, which is what intuitors like to do? There aren't any! The only thing that's intellectual enough in K-12 is the higher math classes. Also chemistry & physics. 

I think it's ridiculous that you say the Special Ed kids are not lacking in intelligence. 
That's politically correct BS.
Sometimes you INTP's say crazy things.

I think society in general is oriented to sensors because they outnumbered intuitors.
I think there is to a large extent a tyranny of sensors. 

I was thinking there should be separate schools for intuitors to get us away from all that stupid sensor crap. I hated dealing with all the stupid male sensors in elementary school. Things started getting better in the 7th grade when they put dumb kids in separate classes and I got put in the smart classes. I didn't have to deal with them as much.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

I think the school system is failing everyone, personally.


----------



## OtherMe (Jun 22, 2014)

Actually, school is tailored for sensors. Textbooks have visuals and attempt to explain things in broken down terms so that sensors can keep up with the theory by applying examples. If schools were tailored to intuitive types, there would be no pictures in textbooks, no friendly colours, no visual aids, none of that stuff.

I took a trade course on mechanics about 2 years ago. We literally touched every component of a vehicle, played with cross-sections of an engine that actually moved and demonstrated automotive principles. We used diagnostic tools to play with the characteristics of a working engine that was taken out of the vehicle, we ran simulations... The whole thing was a hands on experience with a systematic approach to the subject. There is NO way they could have tailored that course to better suit a sensing type. I was 2% higher than any other student in the class, and the top 3 were 12% higher than the rest of the class. This was a military course and the students in second and third place had taken the course before, one in a civilian college, the other in the same military course and I only took it for the first time with NO prior experience. Now that I'm done bragging on it, think about this: I was the only intuiting student in the class and I was at a disadvantage. 

So why would I come in at the top when the course was tailored to sensors and I had no experience with automotive technology? There's more than one reason. Because I'm intuitive, I can more easily grasp the concepts behind the visual aids. Our grades were derived from tests. Tests are driven by theory, not application. 

Also, and I'm not sure this applies to all sensors, but the other students were actually memorizing the textbook word for word. I don't have to do that because if I understand the principals behind something, I no longer have to memorize anything. "If 'a' event occurs, proceed with step 'b'" doesn't have meaning to me. But when you say "you need to do step 'b' if 'a' occurs because of factor 'c'" all I remember is factor 'c' which gives me both the 'a' and 'b' and that's a serious shortcut to memorization.

So it's not the fault of the education system that sensors have a hard time in school. It's just that they have to work harder to produce the same grades. You can't fix that by altering school. It will always be advantaged towards intuitive types.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

OtherMe said:


> Actually, school is tailored for sensors. Textbooks have visuals and attempt to explain things in broken down terms so that sensors can keep up with the theory by applying examples. If schools were tailored to intuitive types, there would be no pictures in textbooks, no friendly colours, no visual aids, none of that stuff.
> 
> I took a trade course on mechanics about 2 years ago. We literally touched every component of a vehicle, played with cross-sections of an engine that actually moved and demonstrated automotive principles. We used diagnostic tools to play with the characteristics of a working engine that was taken out of the vehicle, we ran simulations... The whole thing was a hands on experience with a systematic approach to the subject. There is NO way they could have tailored that course to better suit a sensing type. I was 2% higher than any other student in the class, and the top 3 were 12% higher than the rest of the class. This was a military course and the students in second and third place had taken the course before, one in a civilian college, the other in the same military course and I only took it for the first time with NO prior experience. Now that I'm done bragging on it, think about this: I was the only intuiting student in the class and I was at a disadvantage.
> 
> ...


Don't blame intuition for this. Automotive classes don't tend to attract the cream of the crop. It is rather easy to excel in an automotive course if you're at least of average intelligence.


----------



## OtherMe (Jun 22, 2014)

niss said:


> Don't blame intuition for this. Automotive classes don't tend to attract the cream of the crop. It is rather easy to excel in an automotive course if you're at least of average intelligence.


The fact remains that the sensing students memorize the pages of textbooks without understanding the principals behind them. And that is a serious disadvantage no matter how you set up any classroom or lesson.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

OtherMe said:


> The fact remains that the sensing students memorize the pages of textbooks without understanding the principals behind them. And that is a serious disadvantage no matter how you set up any classroom or lesson.


The fact remains that this is your subjective opinion.

You know they are sensors because...?

I'm a sensor who took automotive technology in college. I didn't memorize the books, but worked from a knowledge of the principle and theory behind automotive mechanics. I hope that you aren't about to label me as an intuitive.

EDIT: But your comment is stated in broader terms, rather than just automotive. Sensing students do not memorize pages of information and are quite adept at understanding principles and concepts. You need to back up and re-think your position on this.


----------



## Sweetness394 (Jan 26, 2014)

john.thomas said:


> Nope. I'm a sensor and I've done great in education. Those statistics are probably lies, I have a hard time believing the numbers are that high, anything you find about that on the internet is likely to be biased against sensors and trying to make them look stupid because the majority of people on the internet are intuitives.


Yea I actually think that a lot of people who do well in school are SJs (not to say that I completely disagree with the OP). There are so many times where I wish I could easily remember detailed information but instead had to spend countless hours attempting to shove that shit in my brain. My dad on the other hand (ESTJ) was definitely that chem/physics major who partied all the time and only had to study like an hour before taking the exam -sigh-


----------



## OtherMe (Jun 22, 2014)

niss said:


> The fact remains that this is your subjective opinion.
> 
> You know they are sensors because...?
> 
> ...


You don't seriously want me to rationalize myself to you... Fine, but this is the last time I'll ever humour a sensing type.

First: How did you do in your class? Was there an intuit who beat you and now you have butthurt?

Second: Our class participated in a social study where we took the MBTI for team building purposes. I collected the results and took notes on the other students behaviour and test results throughout the duration of the course in order to complete my own independent case study of classroom leadership skills. Two of them didn't disclose their type with me, but I figure in a group of 32 students, excluding 2 members from the results of the case study is not only accurate enough, it's mathematically easier to calculate percentages.

Third: My experience with the sensors I worked with is that they have a hard time grasping why a formula works. While it's true that sensing types "just don't care" about the why and just want to get the job done, Isaac Newton, an intuit, had to figure out why many of these formulas work and he didn't even have a textbook. And so while sensors can work well with theory by applying existing formulas to their appropriate circumstances, they don't materialize them anywhere near as often as intuitive types do. Without intuition, we might as well be living in caves being thankful we don't live in the trees still.

Fourth: I don't need to back up and rethink my position. The internet is rife with anonymity. But I'll tell you what. Why don't you figure out where I live and come fight me? We can settle this in an irrational manner that proves absolutely nothing, but I can personally guarantee will make us both feel better.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

OtherMe said:


> You don't seriously want me to rationalize myself to you... Fine, but this is the last time I'll ever humour a sensing type.
> 
> First: How did you do in your class? Was there an intuit who beat you and now you have butthurt?
> 
> ...


Oh boy, this should be fun. So thrilled that you will humor me. And that I'll be the last to suffer such an act of kindness.  

1) Top of my class. 4.0 I wasn't worried about intuitives or sensors - I was there to learn.

2) Most excellent. With the test being given in such a manner, that means that our percentage of error (mis-typing) will only be 50-70%.

3) Interesting paragraph. It appears as though you are saying that sensors lack intuition, that they aren't curious about their world, and they can't apply theory beyond rudimentary use of formulas. Is that correct? Before you answer, go ahead and read the forum rules. Not worth getting an infraction for this.

4) Are you kidding me? I'm anything but anonymous on this Internet thingy. I've met a few hundred (not a typo) people IRL, who I first met on the internet. So meeting interesting people IRL that I've met on the internet is fine by me. However, I don't tolerate fools, and your statements are really sounding foolish.

Personally, I don't care that you are misinformed about MBTI in general, and about sensors, in particular. What bothers me is that you post such mindless drivel and some other poor newbie will read it and be misled. Therefore, I have provided a rebuttal to counter the nonsense you've asserted.

But don't just take my word for it. You should go post your theories about sensors on the MBTI and Cognitive Functions sub-forums. I'm sure that would prove an interesting diversion for the regulars.


----------

