The Desert Colossus

Does anyone else subscribe?

What made me as is this very interesting article I'm reading about this woman named Michelle Rhee. The title of the article is "Can She Save Our Schools?".

If the article title is self explanatory...

...

Please, someone, don't make me repeat it again...! D:

I didn't really want to spoil the article, but basically Rhee is in charge of many D.C. schools and is making several notable reforms with them. The article goes on to lists her plans for saving schools, mainly replacing those who aren't capable of doing a good job and rewarding those who do.

"Not doing a good job"? Schools are doing exactly what they're made for: keeping young adults off of the job market.

Ironic? Yes, it is.

Umm... You'd rather have 15-16 year olds all over the place working rather than getting a proper education before they legally become adults?

You DO realize the potential of you getting hired increases significantly if you're a high school graduate, and even more if you're a college graduate, right?

"Delaying adulthood"? That's complete rubbish.

Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 02, 2008, 07:22:53 PM
Umm... You'd rather have 15-16 year olds all over the place working rather than getting a proper education before they legally become adults?

You DO realize the potential of you getting hired increases significantly if you're a high school graduate, and even more if you're a college graduate, right?

"Delaying adulthood"? That's complete rubbish.

For your first statement, you act as if it hasn't happened before.

And yes, I do realize that. But then we go back to forgetting what we have learned because there's hardly an application for it in our lives.

For your final statement, it is hardly an argument. Ever heard of "backing up your arguments"?

You don't think I, as a person in College, am experiencing adulthood? Or that thousands, millions of others that have gone through college aren't experiencing adulthood when they got to college. For many of us, this is our first dose of true independance. And when you say it just 'delays adulthood' when someone becomes more learned about his world... that kinda pisses me off, because you're overlooking how fundamental education is in improving society.

You think that all things that don't have an application, that aren't 'used' will essentially be forgotten? When someone takes classes and learns about the world, how he chooses to use the application is his own choice, but you're basically saying that someone shouldn't be given that choice to learn something because, whoop-de-do, you have a magic globe that tells you what WILL become useful and what won't!

Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 02, 2008, 08:00:14 PM
You think that all things that don't have an application, that aren't 'used' will essentially be forgotten? When someone takes classes and learns about the world, how he chooses to use the application is his own choice, but you're basically saying that someone shouldn't be given that choice to learn something because, whoop-de-do, you have a magic globe that tells you what WILL become useful and what won't!

In the orange text, yes, I do. Do I remember all the steps in, say, glycolysis? No, because I have had no use for it. Why is it that people should expect me to remember complex subjects like that if I never apply them?

In the black text, once again, you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Of course one should be given the choice to apply what he or she learns! That's kind of the point of learning, isn't it? What I'm saying is that the government and business pretty much twist our arms to learn things we probably aren't going to use--and for a considerable part, it's stuff that people don't particularly enjoy.

If someone wants to take a physics class and is well aware that he or she is never going to use it and is just taking it for the sake of it, then hey, I see nothing wrong with that.

You're pretty much describing the complete opposite of what I'm saying. I'm advocating that someone should be given the choice to learn something and use it how he or she pleases. By the way we have things set up now, though, we're learning that and stuff we're being made to learn that we do not particularly enjoy.

Given the choice between a subject you absolutely love and a subject you absolutely abhor, which would you choose: the one you love or both of them?

When you're in college Mags, choice becomes everything. Decisions become everything. But in High School, it is important that you do well. Sure, you may learn some things that some may think are 'boring' or 'painfully dull', but a general education, emphasizing a core curriculum allows someone to be given a broad knowledge over many things. And once one graduates from High School, you can pursue whatever you want. It's very important that minds today be introduced to many things, so they may make an open choice on their career after experiencing everything.

But even in college, there are still a core set of classes (but the decision making process is MUCH MORE FREE in what you can choose to do and work with).

What constitutes the core usually includes writing courses, so you can learn how to write in a college setting and hone your skills in writing with an emphasis on research (and 90% of college is about research). A couple of math/quantitive reasoning courses, some history courses, some 'issues' (global/political/understanding) courses, courses of scientific inquiry...

Aww, hell, I'll just link you to the General Education site of my college, UNCC so you can get a general idea of how it is. General Education (http://www.ucol.uncc.edu/gened/) and the Advising Worksheet on General Education (http://www.ucol.uncc.edu/gened/AdvisingWorksheet-GenEd.pdf)

Pay attention to what it says about the Renaissance. Then maybe you'll get an understanding that it's not all about business and political influences not knowing what they're doing.

Mags, I agree with JQ.  High school is about giving you a general education so you can see what you like, and then college is about further discovering what you like and deciding what you want to do.  Many college students change their major during their first year, sometimes twice or more.

Sure, I forgot just about all the calculus I learned in high school, but I wouldn't say taking AP Calc BC was a waste of my time.

Well, okay, maybe it was since I got a 2 on the BC part of the test, but at least I got a 3 on the AB part, so it wasn't an entire waste. >>

Wow, how did this come about?  :-[

It's obvious that none of you ave read the article, so shut up. This talks more about inter-city schools, which (especially for D.C., where she's most active) have especially bad reputations for poor education. It compares a small-town elementary school in Arizona her daughters once went to and one of the best elementary schools in DC, which the daughters went to when they moved. Rhee quickly deduced that the Arizona one was very superior.

Also, notice that this is the General discussion board. Unless you have something relevant to Time Magazine or Michelle Rhee you'd like to add to this topic, you can bash it out on your PMs.

I personally feel that what I'm saying is on topic, Whocares; with my viewpoint on the world and how most humans today live, I perceive most of the education being forced on us to be neither "good" nor "bad"--rather, I perceive the action of forced education to be bad. Pray tell, what does this woman qualify as "poor education"? That scores aren't high enough?

Hold this thought for a second, and I'll reply to HNS and JQ.

Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 02, 2008, 08:25:14 PM
When you're in college Mags, choice becomes everything. Decisions become everything. But in High School, it is important that you do well. Sure, you may learn some things that some may think are 'boring' or 'painfully dull', but a general education, emphasizing a core curriculum allows someone to be given a broad knowledge over many things. And once one graduates from High School, you can pursue whatever you want. It's very important that minds today be introduced to many things, so they may make an open choice on their career after experiencing everything.

But even in college, there are still a core set of classes (but the decision making process is MUCH MORE FREE in what you can choose to do and work with).

. . .

Pay attention to what it says about the Renaissance. Then maybe you'll get an understanding that it's not all about business and political influences not knowing what they're doing.

*see also HNS's last post*

The thing is, though, that we as humans are perfectly capable of figuring out what we like to do well before we get into more advanced studies. It's not unheard of for, say, a kid to want to become a fireman.

Experience with fire, safety, and heavy equipment aside, why not let this kid become a fireman early and get the education that really will be needed (not necessarily in that order)? That's trying out for a career, isn't it? If he or she finds out that he or she doesn't like being a fireman, he or she could always drop it altogether and try something else, maybe getting some suggestions from other people along the way. At least he or she had some application for what he or she learned. If he or she does like it, however, why not let him or her? In time, he or she will get the needed experience to perform the job more efficiently and safely, use the equipment properly, and become stronger. If he or she wants a broader understanding about the world, he or she can always get more education about it, sure. Nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean that it should be shoved down his throat. If he forgets about it because of the lack of application and interest, that was time lost that could've been more well spent learning something that he or she could be more enlightened in.

Here, let me quote from My Ishmael, since I am clearly not doing it justice:

Quote"I do realize, Julie, that I have to show you how to explore this new continent that I've led you to."

"I'm glad to hear that," I told [Ishmael].

"Perhaps you'd like to hear how I first began to explore it myself."

"I'd like that very much."

"Last Sunday I mentioned the name Rachel Sokolow as the person who made it possible for me to maintain this establishment. You don't need to know how this came about, but I knew Rachel from infancy--was in communication with her as you and I are in communication. I'd had no experience of your educational system when Rachel started school. Not having any reason to, I'd never given it even a passing thought. Like most five-year-olds, she was thrilled to be going off to school at last, and I was thrilled for her, imagining (as she did) that some truly wonderful experience must be awaiting her. It was only after several months that I began to notice that her excitement was fading--and continued to fade month after month and year after year, until, by the time she was in the third grade, she was thoroughly bored and glad for any opportunity to miss a day of school. Does all this come as strange news to you?"

"Yeah," I said with a bitter laugh. "Only about eighty million kids went to bed last night praying for six feet of snow to fall so the schools would have to close."

"Through Rachel, I became a student of your educational system. In effect, I went to school with her. Most of the adults in your society seem to have forgotten what went on when they were in school as small children. If, as adults, they were forced to see it all again through the eyes of their children, I think they'd be astounded and horrified."

"Yeah, I think so, too."

"What one sees first is how far short real schooling falls from the ideal of 'young minds being awakened.' Teachers for the most part would be delighted to awaken young minds, but the system within they must work fundamentally frustrates that desire by insisting that all minds must be opened in the same order, using the same tools, and at the same pace, on a certain schedule. The teacher is charged with getting the class as a whole to a certain predetermined point in the curriculum by a certain predetermined time, and the individuals that make up the class soon learn how to help the teacher with this task. This is, in a sense, the first thing they must learn. Some learn it quickly and easily, and others learn it slowly and painfully, but all eventually learn it. Do you have any idea what I'm talking about?"

"I think so."

"What have you personally learned to help teachers with their task?"

"Don't ask questions."

"Expand on that a bit, Julie."

"If you raise your hand and say, 'Gee, Ms. Smith, I haven't understood a single word you've said all day,' Ms. Smith is going to hate you. If yo u raise your hand and say, 'Gee, Ms. Smith, I haven't understood a single word you've said all week,' Ms. Smith is going to hate you five times as much. If you raise your hand and say, 'Gee, Ms. Smith, I haven't understood a word you've said all year,' Ms. Smith is going to pull out a gun and shoot you."

"So the idea is to give the impression that you understand everything, whether you do or not."

"That's right. The last thing the teacher wants to hear is that you haven't understood something."

"But you began by giving me the rule against asking questions. You haven't really addressed that."

"Don't ask questions means...don't bring up things just because you wonder about them. I mean, like, suppose you're studying tidal forces. You don't raise your hand to ask if it's true that crazy people tend to be crazier during the full moon. I can imagine doing something like that in kindergarten, but by the time you're my age [12], that would be taboo. On the other hand, some teachers like to be distracted by certain kinds of questions. If they've got a hobbyhorse, they'll always accept an invitation to ride it, and kids pick up on that right away."

"Why would you want to have the teacher riding a hobbyhorse?"

"Because it's better than listening to him explain how a bill passes Congress."

"How else do you help teachers with their task?"

"Never disagree. Never point out inconsistencies. Never ask questions that go beyond what's being taught. Never let on that you're lost. Always try to look like you're getting every word. It all comes down to pretty much the same thing."

"I understand," Ishmael said. "Again, I stress that this is a defect of the system itself and not of the teachers, whose overriding obligation is to 'get through the material.' You understand that, in spite of all this, yours is the most advanced educational system in the world. It works very badly, but it's still the most advanced there is. . . .

". . . To return to my story, I watched Rachel being marched through the grades (and I add that she went to a very expensive private school--the most advanced of the advanced). As I did so, I began to put what I was seeing together with what I already knew of the workings of your culture and what I already knew of the workings of those cultures that you are so far in advance of. At this point, I had developed none of the theories you've heard here so far. In societies you consider primitive, youngsters 'graduate' from childhood at age thirteen or fourteen, and by this age have basically learned all they need in order to function as adults in their community. They've learned so much, in fact, that if the rest of the community were simply to vanish overnight, they'd be able to survive without the least difficulty. They'd know how to shelter and clothe themselves. At age thirteen or fourteen, their survival value is one hundred percent. I assume you know what I mean by that."

"Of course."

"In your vastly more advanced system, youngsters graduate from your school system at age eighteen, and their survival value is essentially zero. If the rest of the community were to vanish overnight and they were left entirely to their own resources, they'd have to be very lucky to survive at all. Without tools--and without even tools for making tools, they wouldn't be able to hunt or fish very effectively (if at all). And most wouldn't have any idea what wild-growing plants are edible. They wouldn't know how to clothe themselves or build a shelter."

"That's right"

--My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn; pages 130-136

Need I go on? There's more. A lot more.

If all little boys wanted to be police officers or firemen, where would all the other jobs come from? Jobs that sustain and support the functions of society.

What about Literacy? If a kid didn't go to school, he might become illiterate. Are you suggesting that he should pursue becoming a fireman rather than taking things at stages and becoming at first, literate?

What Ishmael is an ideal to work with a system that seems broken. The way I've been talking about is also an ideal, but we have different directions on how education should work because the societies are different.

Are you disillusioned because you had bad teachers? What would you rather have pursued than the 'useless information' that you were presented with?

I agree with both sides.
Magmar is only trying to say that a lot of what we're forced to learn in High School will NEVER be used. I'd like to point out, as well, that there are some classes that are downright necessities. These classes involve basic math skills, Reading and Writing skills, Basic U.S. History, and Basic Geography. Classes such as Physics, Chemistry, and Geometry are classes that should be extracurricular. The fact is, that if you don't have the capacity to pass those classes(which are mandatory), you are almost always denied the opportunity to go to college. Some people have so much trouble with classes that they'll NEVER NEED, that it sickens me. The fact that they're called failures for not succeeding in classes that teach skills that won't be used is depressing. However, here is where I agree with JQ:

In passing high school(doing the tasks brought to you, needed or not), you show that you have the maturity, the drive, the discipline, and the determination to do something whether you like it or not. Believe it or not: thats life- and not everything you have to do in life will be enjoyable.

Mags, when I was in early elementary school, I wanted to be a paleontologist.  When I was in late elementary school and middle school, I was shooting for writer/cartoonist.  When I entered high school, I didn't know what I wanted to do.  By the time I left high school, I was thinking forensic science, but halfway through my first semester at college, I switched to English.  Then I left to get a degree in game design, but now I'm out of college, with a focus on my writing (and I would be more focused on it if my computer wasn't such a pile of crap >> ).

My point is, not everyone knows what they want to do, even going into high school.

You know what's sad, ZV? Your state is already at the bottom when it comes to education. Taking out maths like Geometry and Algebra and Sciences like Chemistry and physics would only serve to dumb down the system further.

Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 03, 2008, 05:38:10 PM
You know what's sad, ZV? Your state is already at the bottom when it comes to education. Taking out maths like Geometry and Algebra and Sciences like Chemistry and physics would only serve to dumb down the system further.

JQ, I agree with that, but I feel you were more trying to insult ZV with that post rather than make a point. I suggest you apologize. Also, I find it funny how colleges are looking for "drive and leadership" when the majority of students will just end up working in non-leadership jobs for a big company.

ZV, while I do agree that there are several things in high school that most of us will never need (I feel that music classes being mandatory in elementary and parts of middle school is a complete waste), the fact is that jobs are so incredibly diverse that they will each require several different skills from a seemingly related job. There is so much that needs to be taught to us, and so little time to do it. The fact that elementary school doesn't go as fast as it could doesn't help much, either.

For example, say you want to be a scientist. Since that is your goal, you feel that learning a lot about history is a waste. However, you're best friend plans on being a history teacher. Therefore they'll need all of what they learn in that class.

Also, just so you know, the three classes you mentioned a VERY important. If it weren't for physics classes, who would have built your house? If it weren't for chemistry classes, who would have discovered how bad smoking and drinking are for your body? (That particular example also crosses over into biology, but chemistry is involved.) If it weren't for geometry classes, who would have planned the roads from going straight into your home? Far more of what you learn in school fits into real life than you think.

QuoteAlso, I find it funny how colleges are looking for "drive and leadership" when the majority of students will just end up working in non-leadership jobs for a big company.

The reason they want students with drive and leadership is because students with those qualities are the most creative, and are able to best test their ability in decision making. Even if you think they'll be working in non-leadership roles, drive and leadership emphasize people who will take the extra step and go further, an attribute that is very important with the workload of college.

ZV, for the most part, you get what I am saying. :)

Quote from: Whocares on December 04, 2008, 12:52:01 PM
Also, just so you know, the three classes you mentioned a VERY important. If it weren't for physics classes, who would have built your house? If it weren't for chemistry classes, who would have discovered how bad smoking and drinking are for your body? . . . If it weren't for geometry classes, who would have planned the roads from going straight into your home?

Here is my one universal answer to all those questions: people who would actually be interested in those subjects and curious to figure out what all the data add up to. As it comes down to it, that was how most, if not all, of our technological advances were developed (save for scientific accidents that led to brilliant discoveries, of course ;) ). Geometry classes for the masses appear to have had a very limited effect on that.

Quote from: Hi no Seijin on December 03, 2008, 05:26:14 PM
Mags, when I was in early elementary school, I wanted to be a paleontologist.  When I was in late elementary school and middle school, I was shooting for writer/cartoonist.  When I entered high school, I didn't know what I wanted to do.  By the time I left high school, I was thinking forensic science, but halfway through my first semester at college, I switched to English.  Then I left to get a degree in game design, but now I'm out of college, with a focus on my writing . . . .

My point is, not everyone knows what they want to do, even going into high school.

And why should it have been that you weren't allowed to pursue those interests when you were already interested in them and then try them out right on the spot (given the actually necessary training)? Daniel Quinn's response is coming up soon.

Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 03, 2008, 02:57:56 PM. . .What about Literacy? If a kid didn't go to school, he might become illiterate. Are you suggesting that he should pursue becoming a fireman rather than taking things at stages and becoming at first, literate?

. . .

Are you disillusioned because you had bad teachers? What would you rather have pursued than the 'useless information' that you were presented with?

As for your first question, if his world is much like ours, except for the much greater freedom of choosing a career at any particular age without education restrictions, I wouldn't think that he'd become illiterate. Technically speaking (and no pun intended here), it counts to a certain extent as being literate if you can speak fluently in your language. And if reading were required for his job, then he'd likely pick up the ropes eventually, given the proper amount of time. That's because he'd have a use for it.

As for your second question, no, it's not because of the teachers. In fact, it was my English teacher who introduced me to Daniel Quinn. Like what Ishmael said in the quote, it's because of the system. As for your third, I'd probably would have tried pursuing becoming an astronaut, but I grew scared of that and switched to video game design or (VERY ironically :P ) math teaching. If I had been trained in the arts of space travel and then decided that it wasn't for me, at least I had a choice. At least I was interested in it at the time. In my opinion, it's certainly better than spending time learning something that's totally incompatible with your interests at the current time.

Now, to continue where we all left off...

Quote”When the youngsters of your culture graduate from school (unless their families continue to take care of them), they must immediately find someone to give them money to buy the things they need in order to survive. In other words, they have to find jobs. You should be able to explain why this is so.”

I nodded. “Because the food is under lock and key.”

“Precisely. I want you to see the connection between these two things. Because they have no survival value on their own, they must get jobs. This isn’t something that’s optional for them, unless they’re independently wealthy. It’s either get a job or go hungry.”

“Yeah, I see that.”

“I’m sure you realize that adults in your society are forever saying that your schools are doing a terrible job. They’re the most advanced in the history of the world, but they’re still doing a terrible job. How do your schools fall short of what people expect of them, Julie?”

“God, I don’t know. This isn’t something that interests me very much. I just tune out when people start talking about stuff like that.”

“Come on, Julie. You don’t have to listen very hard to know this.”

I groaned. “Test scores are lousy. The schools don’t prepare people for jobs. The schools don’t prepare people to have a good life. I suppose some people would say that the schools should give us some survival value. We should be able to be successful when we graduate.”

“That’s what your schools are there for, isn’t it? They’re there to prepare children to have a successful life in your society.”

“That’s right.”

Ishmael nodded. “This is what Mother Culture teaches, Julie. It’s truly one of her most elegant deceptions. Because of course this isn’t at all what your schools are there for.”

“What are they there for, then?”

“It took me several years to work it out. At that stage, I wasn’t used to uncovering these deceptions. This was my first attempt, and I was a little slow at it. The schools are there, Julie, to regulate the flow of young competitors into the job market.”

“Wow,” I said. “I see that.”

“A hundred and fifty years ago, when the United States was still a largely agrarian society, there was no reason to keep young people off the job market past the age of eight or ten, and it was not uncommon for children to leave school at that age. Only a small minority went on to college to study for the professions. With increasing urbanization and industrialization, however, this began to change. By the end of the nineteenth century, eight years of schooling were becoming the rule rather than the exception. As urbanization and industrialization continued to accelerate through the 1920s and 1930s, twelve years of schooling became the rule. After World War Two, dropping out of school before the end of twelve years began to be strongly discouraged, and it was put about that an additional four years of college should no longer be considered something only for the elite. Everyone should go to college, at least for a couple of years. Yes?”

I was waving my hand in the air. “I have a question. It seems to me like urbanization and industrialization would have the opposite effect. Instead of keeping young people off the job market, the system would have been trying to put them on the job market.”

Ishmael nodded. “Yes, on the surface, that sounds plausible. But imagine what would happen here today if your educators suddenly decided that a high-school education was no longer needed.”

I gave that a few seconds of consideration and said, “Yeah, I see what you mean. There would suddenly be twenty million kids out there competing for jobs that don’t exist. The jobless rate would go through the roof.”

“It would literally be catastrophic, Julie. You see, it’s not only essential to keep these fourteen-to-eighteen-year-olds off the job market, it’s also essential to keep them at home as non-wage-earning consumers.”

“What does that mean?”

“This age group pulls an enormous amount of money—two hundred billion dollars, it’s estimated—out of their parents’ pockets to be spent on books, clothes, games, novelties, compact discs, and similar things that are designed specifically for them and no one else. Many enormous industries depend on teenage consumers. You must be aware of that.”

“Yeah, I guess so. I just never thought of it in these terms.”

“If these teenagers were suddenly expected to be wage earners and no longer at liberty to pull billions of dollars from their parents’ pockets, these youth-oriented industries would vanish overnight, pitching more millions out onto the job market.”

“I see what you mean. If fourteen-year-olds had to support themselves, they wouldn’t be spending their money on Nike shoes, arcade games, and CDs.”

--My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn; pages 134-136

Still quite a bit more to come, of course.

Quote from: Zelda Vet on December 03, 2008, 03:15:54 PMI'd like to point out, as well, that there are some classes that are downright necessities. These classes involve basic math skills, Reading and Writing skills, Basic U.S. History, and Basic Geography.

And the next passage addresses both the forgetfulness concept, and a later one addresses ZV's quote (and also the forgetfulness thing again, I think).

I think you should at best, take what Daniel Quinn says about education as theory, rather than having the system that he talks about be put into practical, everyday use.

By approaching it as a theory, one can take the best of both worlds and apply it in new ways.

You need to read up on Maslow, and especially his pyramid of development. It will give you an insight on needs.

Kind of hard to take it as theory when it makes perfect sense and everything fits together perfectly. You can't deny that educational requirements have been increasing over the years--even I noticed it before I even heard of Daniel Quinn. The fact also remains about the "zero survival value" part.

But I'll see if I can keep Maslow in mind. ;)

*too lazy at the time to post the next section; wait 'til later*

I've shown some of my friends this topic and to them, your ideas don't make sense at all. One of them even said that what you were saying was kind of silly. Another friend said that you had no real life experience to go off of.

Not to go off subject, but I seem to recall you telling me you didn't have friends JQ.

>.>

Anyways, Thats what I was trying to say Mags. If people are interested in that field, then they should take the classes as extracurriculars.

Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 07, 2008, 07:39:39 AMI've shown some of my friends this topic and to them, your ideas don't make sense at all. One of them even said that what you were saying was kind of silly. Another friend said that you had no real life experience to go off of.

You mention the word "some." What about the rest?

And the "no real life experience," as you say, doesn't really make the argument invalid, either.

EDIT: Whoops, I meant in a previous post that it made perfect sense to me, not in general. Sorry that I didn't clarify that. ^^;

I have no friends at this university, I have few friends in other places.

"Some" as in the only people whom I showed the topic to. There are no others whom I've shown the topic to, though I could, if you'd like, show still others and garner their opinion as well.

Here is what my friend said after reading the topic:

277061735 (1:37:55 PM):   i read that discussion
mimescrow (1:38:03 PM):   and?
277061735 (1:39:30 PM):   i think that in school, starting from like elementary or smthn, kids need to be given very little of choice, and they gotta learn everything, it's general knowledge, you gotta have at least some of it. in college kids need to be given alot more choice though
277061735 (1:39:52 PM):   i decided on that long time ago, ever since i came back from the usa for the first time
277061735 (1:40:12 PM):   i've been thinking about it
277061735 (1:40:44 PM):   because over here you pretty much have no choice through the whole educational system
277061735 (1:40:51 PM):   it's good in high school, very good
277061735 (1:41:14 PM):   high school graduates are alot smarter over here, in general
277061735 (1:41:30 PM):   although, i think that your college system is more efficient
277061735 (1:42:09 PM):   even though i've never tried it personally
mimescrow (1:42:16 PM):   so you agree with me?
277061735 (1:42:21 PM):   yes
mimescrow (1:42:35 PM):   what do you think of his argument?
277061735 (1:43:23 PM):   it depends on his age
mimescrow (1:43:51 PM):   high school senior
277061735 (1:44:52 PM):   he has no experience to rely on
277061735 (1:45:08 PM):   he cant see the picture in general
mimescrow (1:46:09 PM):   he's basically relying on a book, a certain author's point of view
277061735 (1:46:14 PM):   i remember, i did complain about having to take those multiple classes i didnt like
277061735 (1:46:53 PM):   but now i see how useful it all was
277061735 (1:52:21 PM):   besides, there are alot of examples of people who dropped out of school, started working, and then later  ended up either being nothing, and hardly making enough money for living, or going back to school

I think education as a whole is a way of preparation for the real world. And whether or not it is fair or just is just another way of preparing.

I think that everyone needs to take art classes (music, art, dance, anything of the sort) to get their fair dose of creative thinking. However, we do need some basic history (yeah, it's important, believe it or not- ever heard of the phrase "history repeats itself?" you can learn from other's mistakes) and maths and science and English for our logical and critical thinking.

Quote from: Fiskers on December 07, 2008, 09:53:31 AM
However, we do need some basic history (yeah, it's important, believe it or not- ever heard of the phrase "history repeats itself?" you can learn from other's mistakes). . .

I do agree with that. W00t! ^_^

And JQ, exactly how much information from those classes he didn't like does he apply today? Any estimate at all? (Clearly, if he notes how useful  it actually is to him, he should have some applications for it, yeah?)

My friend is a girl. This is what she had to say

Quotexxxxxxxxxxxx (5:05:55 PM): I just use that knowledge in everyday life, in conversations, understanding how different things work and why they work that way, also, for example, you're not able to really appreciate art if you know nothing about it, so that counts too, really a whole lot of things.
xxxxxxxxxxxx (5:08:54 PM): I think it's very important to be a well-rounded person, know at least something on various subjects, topics, the amount of your knowledge also greatly affects what kind of people you're surrounded by. If you want to be friends with smart, interesting people, you have to be smart yourself. I'm not sure who wants to be considered a boring person to talk to.

Are you trying to look for excuses not to learn? Learning is a lifelong process, it important that people understand that and appreciate a wide general knowledge over many things.

Sure, some don't follow through on the system, but I honestly don't think the system Quinn suggests is practical or a good idea in its current form.

Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 07, 2008, 02:15:25 PM
My friend is a girl. This is what she had to say

Oh! My apologies! >_<

Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 07, 2008, 02:15:25 PM

Quotevtika4ka (5:05:55 PM): . . . also, for example, you're not able to really appreciate art if you know nothing about it...

I disagree with that. Who is to say appreciation of art can't be a subconscious thing? But that's not the point, I guess.

QuoteAre you trying to look for excuses not to learn? Learning is a lifelong process, it important that people understand that and appreciate a wide general knowledge over many things.

Sure, some don't follow through on the system, but I honestly don't think the system Quinn suggests is practical or a good idea in its current form.

Misunderstandings galore! Again, that is NOT WHAT I AM SAYING. If it's a lifelong process (which it is; I'm not denying that in the slightest), then why should it be forced and tailored to the good of only one person, not the person doing the learning?

For the second statement, perhaps I should skip the next section for  the time being and move onto the one after it...

QuoteIshmael asked if I'd watched any younger siblings grow up from infancy, and I told him no.

"Then you wouldn't know from experience that small children are the most powerful learning engines in the known universe. They effortlessly learn as many languages as are spoken in their households. No one has to sit them down in a classroom and drill them on grammar and vocabulary. They do no homework [okay, since this is at home, I guess they kind of do :P ], they have no tests, no grades. Learning their native languages is no chore at all, because of course it's immensely and immediately useful and gratifying to them.

"Everything you learn during these early years is immensely and immediately useful and gratifying, even if it's only how to crawl or how to build a tower of blocks or how to bang a pot with a spoon or how to make your head buzz with a piercing screech. The learning of small children is limited only by what they're able to see, hear, smell, and get their hands on. This learning drive continues when they enter kindergarten, at least for a while. Do you remember the sort of things you learned in kindergarten?"

"No, I can't say that I do."

"These are the things Rachel learned twenty years ago, but I doubt they're any different nowadays. She learned the names of primary and secondary colors--red, blue, yellow, green, and so on. She learned the names of basic geometric shapes--square, circle, triangle. She learned how to tell time. She learned the days of the week. She learned to count. She learned the basic units of money--penny, nickel, dime, and so on. She learned the months and the seasons of the year. These are obviously things everyone would learn whether they studied them in school or not, but they're still somewhat useful and somewhat gratifying to know, so most children have no difficulty learning them in kindergarten. After reviewing all this in grade one, Rachel went on to learn addition and subtraction and to master beginning reading skills (though, in fact, she'd been reading since she was four years old at least). Again, children generally find these to be useful and gratifying studies. I don't intend to go through the entire curriculum this way, however. The point I want to make is that, in grades K through three, most children master the skills that citizens need in order to get along in your culture, commonly characterized as the 'three R's'--reading, writing, and arithmetic. These are skills that, even at age seven and eight, children actually use and enjoy using. A hundred and fifty years ago, this was the citizen's basic education. Grades four through twelve were added to the curriculum in order to keep youngsters off the job market, and the skills taught in these grades are the ones most students find to be neither useful in their lives nor gratifying to master. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of fractional numbers exemplify these skills. No children at all (and very, very few adults) ever have the occasion to use them, but they're available to be added to the curriculum, and so they have been. They take up months and months of time, and this is all to the good, since the whole point of the exercise is to take up the students' time. You've mentioned other subjects, like civics and earth sciences, which present plenty of opportunities for time-consuming activities. I remember that Rachel was required to memorize state capitals for some course or other. My favorite example of the tendency came to my notice when she was in the eighth grade. She actually learned to fill out a federal income-tax form, something she wouldn't need to do in actual life for at least five years, by which time she obviously would have forgotten the form, which would by then be substantially different anyway. And, of course, every child spends years studying history--national, state, and world, ancient, medieval, and modern--of which they retain about one percent."

I said, "I would have thought you would endorse the teaching of history."

"I do very much endorse it. I endorse the teaching of everything, because everything is what children want to know. What children very deeply want to know of history is how things got to be this way--but no one in your culture would think of teaching them that. Instead, they're overwhelmed with ten million names, dates, and facts that they 'should' know, but that vanish from their heads the moment they're no longer needed to pass a test. It's like handing a thousand-page medical text to a four-year-old who wants to know where babies come from."

"Yeah, that's absolutely true."

"You, here in these rooms, are learning the history that matters to you. Isn't that so?"

"Yes."

"Will you ever forget it?"

"No. Not possibly."

"Children will learn anything they want to learn. They'll fail at learning how to figure percentages in the classroom, but will effortlessly learn how to figure batting averages (which are, of course, just percentages). They'll fail at learning science in the classroom but, working at their personal computers, will effortlessly defeat the most sophisticated computer security systems."

"True, true, true."

I pray this is the last time you think I'm advocating anti-learning, which is just simply untrue and naïve.

I actually agree with what Maggy posted, to an extent. People learn what they want to learn. However, here's a flaw in what he said: Up until third grade, teachers make learning fun. After that, it isn't interesting, so the students don't care.

I also agree with how a large part of what we learn in history doesn't really have much use. It doesn't matter if it was the Romans who made the first walled cities, what's important is that things such as walled cities exist now. Of course, we should study the past, because the mistakes we made years ago can be used as examples to create a better society. After all, isn't the point of each generation to create and protect both a better world and a new generation?

QuoteGrades four through twelve were added to the curriculum in order to keep youngsters off the job market, and the skills taught in these grades are the ones most students find to be neither useful in their lives nor gratifying to master. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of fractional numbers exemplify these skills. No children at all (and very, very few adults) ever have the occasion to use them

This is of course, total Bull****! He doesn't seem to understand or appreciate how much time and effort it takes to skillfully write, and that a person in 3rd grade is fully capable of doing serious writing is nonsense. All of that which Daniel Quinn has listed as 'forcing students off the job market...' ...

Is he aware that there are child labor laws? That maybe THATs the reason why children are kept off the job market until at least 16?

The learning that people got 150 years ago does not apply in the same way that the learning of now does. Now is a totally different world from 150 years ago, and I cannot believe that a supposedly educated man would try to advocate learning to be halted at third grade, simply because that was the primary education 150 years ago.

That is so stupid. Things like higher math may not have mattered to MOST people back then, but they are certainly applicable to the skills of today's job market.

I find it funny how you advocate the idea that we have this huge curriculum is because we want to keep kids off the job market, when we many, many skills in order to remotely succeed in today's job market and remain competitive.

I'm sorry, but what he's saying is honestly beyond preposterous.

Perhaps grades 4 and up were added because... well, since children can't get jobs, adults had to have some way to keep them out of trouble. This seemed kinda obvious to me, but...

I'd also like to point out that elementary school (at least up to third grade) doesn't shove information to little children as much as middle and high school does. From a child's point of view, they will only need to know a fraction of what is shoved into their face.

Also, tomorrow I will get the next issue of Time Magazine. From that point on the topic will be changed to what that issue is about. You can keep debating via PM, if you wish.

Study the history books, whocares. There definitely was a grade 4 and above 100 years and more ago, before child labor laws. Hell, the very reason Child Labor laws were implemented was so children could get a full education instead of having to work like a full-grown man.

The current topic has migrated to an education topic on which we have every right to discuss in public. This debate is very important in fostering  understandings as it's not just Mags and I that are debating here (though we are the ones doing the majority of the debating).

Like I said, JQ, there's no way I can completely do it all justice if I quote it all, which would take hours and would probably be illegal.

Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 07, 2008, 03:28:31 PM
Is he aware that there are child labor laws? That maybe THATs the reason why children are kept off the job market until at least 16?

The learning that people got 150 years ago does not apply in the same way that the learning of now does. Now is a totally different world from 150 years ago, and I cannot believe that a supposedly educated man would try to advocate learning to be halted at third grade, simply because that was the primary education 150 years ago.

The world's not that different. We still live in a Taker society. Have been for thousands of years. And the world is being destroyed for it. And for the love of Pete, he is not advocating that learning be halted at third grade, man! Get it through your head, please? It's the system we're talking about!

Funny you should mention child labor laws. Looking at this article (http://www.ishmael.org/Education/writings/unschooling.shtml) would probably quote at least much of what I need to say, and it will surely save some of the life in my keyboard, haha!

Quote from: JQ Pickwick on December 07, 2008, 03:43:59 PM
Study the history books, whocares. There definitely was a grade 4 and above 100 years and more ago, before child labor laws. Hell, the very reason Child Labor laws were implemented was so children could get a full education instead of having to work like a full-grown man.

Sure there was a grade four and above all those years ago. Neither I nor Daniel Quinn ever denied that. What you seem to fail to understand is that the required amount of education began to elevate into those higher grades as the years went by as industrialization became more widespread.

I kind of doubt that's what child labor laws were for. Also, children have to work eventually; after all, we live in a culture where the food is under lock and key, and any new graduate going into the job market is at the bottom rung of the ladder anyway, having to work his or her way up. If you don't work, you starve. Do you really think schooling prevents that?

Mags, You need skills in order to fully function in society. a lot of those skills can and must be learned through schoolgrow ol. Some are basic and fundamental, but our world is very, very, very competitive. Sure a new approach must be reached and new methods be taught in order to give more focus on education.

However, you keep arguing against the idea of general education.

@Whocares. Through Kindergarten up to Grade 3, things are easy because the kids are so young, but as they older, they have to learn a lot more. Would it make sense if First grade were as easy as 12th?

What I would like you to do, Mags, is to write an essay on the topic of education, framing your arguments in a concise manner, using quotes but putting up how and why the system of General Education no longer applies to today's society. Try to use arguments that I haven't heard yet, but you can still use specific quotes from Quinn.

I'd be very interested in your point on this in an essay format. You must be persuasive and not exclusive. Do not tell me it is a valid argument simply because Daniel Quinn says it is.

I expect this to be done in one week.

(Besides, this will be good writing practice for you)

When i was going through the Public Education system, I felt that things were slow, that there wasn't enough challenge. What you are advocating, is taking that challenge away. If new minds are challenged in a creative way, they will be engaged in the activities, rather than become bored by them. I know a new system needs to be worked out, however a system such as Daniel Quinn's is not really adapted to the fast-paced society and culture of today, which is why it is not functional.

You know, the most appalling schools are those that keep emphasizing the basics, they put so much emphasis on reading and math, but take a lot away from science and the arts. Those schools fail as there is very little incentive to learn, very little fascination, very little inspiration. General Education is fast disappearing in favor of schools that emphasize test scores over challenge and useful skills and subjects, they are basically forced to teach reading and math and little else.

Do you realize that taking away General Education would only make things worse?

Not particularly. Remember, it's human nature to want to learn things. If people want to learn about something, then chances are that people are going to learn about it, regardless of what system is shoving what have you else down their throats.

The most appalling schools, as you say, quite possibly do fail in the way of neglecting the sciences and the arts, but they must also certainly fail in the ways that every other school tied to this system does. Please, name one school that's doing what people are expecting it to do--preparing students for jobs so they're ready for those top-notch positions as soon as they're out. With the information given to me, I can't think of any. Your input on this would actually be quite valuable.

I may have said this before, but I have a friend in my programming class who has a mom without a degree; yet, her work experience and high esteem in her work pretty much guarantees her a job where it's available. No education needed; she already has what she needs, and that's experience. School apparently does very little to provide that.

QuoteI know a new system needs to be worked out, however a system such as Daniel Quinn's is not really adapted to the fast-paced society and culture of today, which is why it is not functional.

I was under the impression that the reason it's "not functional" is that people aren't willing to try it out. It also would be kind of hard to test that system out since we've essentially already abolished it by ridding the world of most Leaver cultures. If the system gives you a challenge, though...well, I certainly hope that the challenge actually benefits people instead of learning once and forgetting it at least until it needs to be called upon again, which may need relearning in that case.

Trust me on this: I was hoping that just about everything I learned in my advanced mathematics classes would have everyday applications for me. I was saddened and angered, though, when I heard my programming teacher saying that it really doesn't have a use, or that employers don't really care about it (I was working on a resumé--not that I didn't already have one made...). That in and of itself is proof that at least some of what I learned in school doesn't really have an application unless you're in one of the careers that uses it in the exact same conditions taught in school (a mathematician comes to mind...). I tell ya, I was mad. I spend all that time learning about math (and loving the challenge; don't get me wrong), but for what? Nothing? It's not even worth noting on a resumé? I'm sure that if I had been much more proficient in the other classes that I took, I probably would have been in the same situation.

QuoteYou need skills in order to fully function in society. a lot of those skills can and must be learned through schoolgrow ol. Some are basic and fundamental, but our world is very, very, very competitive. Sure a new approach must be reached and new methods be taught in order to give more focus on education.

An example of said skills, please? From what I can tell, you can already learn most of those skills at home or in preschool/kindergarten effortlessly. If that's not true, I ask that you provide an example for me to lean on so I don't feel like I'm being overly assumptive. But it could also raise the question as to why children don't learn those skills earlier. If said skills are as necessary as you say, logic would dictate that they'd be learned well before the post-third-grade years. Why is it that they're made to be learned later or "declared" to be necessary when they're really not (not that I'm saying the latter is necessarily true, mind you)?

As for the essay...absolutely no guarantees. For one, if I wrote it, I'd feel like I'd be repeating myself (and/or plagiarizing :P ); secondly...I have a feeling that I'm going to be doing enough essay work for one year next semester.

Not that I'm trying to come up with a lie to get out of it; I think it'd be rather stale of an argument. I'd feel like I wouldn't do a good job doing it. :\

Quote from: Whocares on December 07, 2008, 03:22:13 PM
However, here's a flaw in what he said: Up until third grade, teachers make learning fun. After that, it isn't interesting, so the students don't care.

*kinda forgot to quote this*

Sorry, but when did he say that, again? I might've missed it.

If you're so into math, try Engineering. She says it doesn't have a use? A use in general is completely different from a use in career, where it WILL apply, but they're more apt to accept a degree than something you wrote on a resume.

You're cutting off of my word 'skills' as simple skills, as opposed to more complex, ordered skills required in a job environment. Typing really fast comes to mind, as does math in accounting and ways of writing English in Editing, the sciences, and the humanities.

Writing is a basic skill, writing to suit a certain profession, such as editing is still another skill, though more complex. Not everything can be learned before third grade, and that you assume 'logically' that this can be so is kind of missing the point.

*sigh*

QuoteNot particularly. Remember, it's human nature to want to learn things. If people want to learn about something, then chances are that people are going to learn about it, regardless of what system is shoving what have you else down their throats.

Most people don't have any other place to learn other things, besides at school. Some people don't even have access to libraries, thus their primary education should come from the school. A person who has encyclopedias to learn by will not learn appropriate skills such as writing or higher math.

I'm sick of how you keep saying that they don't have a use or application; maybe we should differentiate between everyday application and specific application. The latter being things that are specific that you must learn for certain skills in certain subjects. But it is still useful to learn these things through general education because when you graduate high school, you can go anywhere, though most things require still more schooling.

Is it your opinion that General Education is Malicious? A thing like knowledge never hurt anybody.

It looks more to me like you're overlooking the enormous benefits of General Education.

But I feel like what I'm saying is simply falling on deaf ears.

If I were to link this topic on somewhere say, Facebook, starting a group around it, having people in college read over the discussion, I think you would find that most would disagree with you. These are bright students.

You want proof of a good school? Okay, here's one: North Carolina School of Science and Math. That's a magnet school, very, very hard to get into. I know I tried, but I failed. I know others who have gone there, and because they went through all that, college seems easy by comparison (to some of them at least).

Mags, I don't think you fully understand what people really need in order to succeed and remain competitive in today's job environment. You want to be one of those people with this naive point of view that 99% of what we learned doesn't have useful application? Then prepare to be shell-shocked when you get to college. College will make your point of view on this change completely, I guarantee it.

But you seem not to appreciate the benefits. Sure some may see it as 'having stuff crammed down your throat', but the best of us won't see it that way. The best of us deserve to be inspired and to be exposed to as much knowledge as possible; to absorb it like a sponge. An inactive mind simply goes to waste, which is why school is so rigorous. There are some of us who are more than willing to accept the challenge of higher education. Think about it this way: School is probably the only place one will actually hear and learn about science and higher math and art (unless you have VERY cultured parents, something thats honestly statistically unlikely. I know my parents aren't really that cultured, though my grandma definitely helped with my love for reading and science and astronomy.)

If students were not exposed to these subjects in schools, where, pray tell would they learn them from? Most families cannot afford to visit museums, libraries remain inaccessible in some places as well. If they're not going to learn them at school, where are they going to learn them? Not everyone is gifted with intelligent parents, so it becomes the teacher's task to teach and the student's task to learn.

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to create a facebook group called "For or Against General Education Learning", then link them to this debate. We'll see how it pans out in the end.

Rhetorical question: Looking back now on when you were in 3rd grade, do you honestly believe you had all the skills at that point in time that you would ever need?

Because to be honest with you, I sure as hell don't.

I just read part of that article you just posted a link to, and I must make a point that a society of the forest would not be able to function or suit the needs of everyone. Thousands of years ago we went through a little something called the "Agricultral revolution", in which humans started to figure out how to plant and harvest food. As a result of this, population increased and groups of people became sedentary. With less work needed on food gathering, others could set about on other things and the sciences and arts and written language came to be.

While a society in which everyone lives in abundant forests and work as hunter/gatherers is an romanticized ideal, it is not a workable solution for feeding billions of people. That is why the skills needed in order to survive have changed so drastically from a hunter/gatherer society to agricultural, then to industrial, and finallly to where we are right now.

I suggest one of the first courses you take at college be an Anthropology course, seeing as how Daniel Quinn has certainly garnered your interest into the field.

QuoteIf you're so into math, try Engineering. [He] says it doesn't have a use? A use in general is completely different from a use in career, where it WILL apply, but they're more apt to accept a degree than something you wrote on a resume.

I find it very unlikely that I'm going to have to solve logarithms in an HTML/XHTML/CSS/Flash/game-creating environment. I certainly think it'd be cool if I will, though!

QuoteYou're cutting off of my word 'skills' as simple skills, as opposed to more complex, ordered skills required in a job environment. Typing really fast comes to mind, as does math in accounting and ways of writing English in Editing, the sciences, and the humanities.

I understand the "typing very quickly" part, but I'd say there are many high schoolers who have that down pat--not that I'm saying that everyone does, but I'd say it's a good majority of them, especially with computing becoming much more widespread as of late.

"English in editing," eh? Pray tell, when do you use that in a surveying career? Or a robotics career? And when do you apply the school-learned sciences in an accounting position? A secretary position? Surely just about every accountant can state the steps in the Krebs cycle verbatim or the amount of tension in the cord his/her chandelier hangs from!

QuoteMost people don't have any other place to learn other things, besides at school. Some people don't even have access to libraries, thus their primary education should come from the school. A person who has encyclopedias to learn by will not learn appropriate skills such as writing or higher math.

. . .

If students were not exposed to these subjects in schools, where, pray tell would they learn them from? Most families cannot afford to visit museums, libraries remain inaccessible in some places as well. If they're not going to learn them at school, where are they going to learn them? Not everyone is gifted with intelligent parents, so it becomes the teacher's task to teach and the student's task to learn.

Then what about having their parents teach them some of the required skills, then, hm? I'm quite sure that their parents, provided that they're successful in the workplace, as many are, would be perfectly capable of teaching their young ones about how to act professionally in a work setting or about any of the complex skills you mention here and there. If they need them to be successful, then is it really that implausible that they can't pass it on, at least in part, to the next generation?

For emphasis, parents don't necessarily need to be "intelligent" like most of our teachers are today; however, if they can teach us the skills we actually do need to be successful in society, then who's to say that they're too dimwitted to do it? I see no problem with them teaching us those things and letting teachers teach us whatever else we're interested in. It's better than just spending time.

QuoteI'm sick of how you keep saying that they don't have a use or application; maybe we should differentiate between everyday application and specific application. The latter being things that are specific that you must learn for certain skills in certain subjects. But it is still useful to learn these things through general education because when you graduate high school, you can go anywhere, though most things require still more schooling.

Is it your opinion that General Education is Malicious? A thing like knowledge never hurt anybody.

It looks more to me like you're overlooking the enormous benefits of General Education.

But I feel like what I'm saying is simply falling on deaf ears.

And I'm sick of your implications that everyone needs to learn the exact same things in the exact same way. Yes, knowledge would never hurt anybody, but the fact remains that not everyone is going to want to learn in the exact same way. I like to think of it as a freedom thing: I'll let you learn the way you want to, and I'll let you learn the way you want to. You appear to value being well rounded academically, and I do respect that, but does that mean that it's simply unwise or just completely idiotic for someone to argue for him- or herself that he or she wants to be taught in a different way? It sounds to me that that's what you're implying, but it's obvious that I went wrong somewhere in thinking so, so please correct me when you read this.

And I, too, feel that what I'm saying is worth nothing of noting to you. You provide a counterargument to my claims, and I provide a counterargument to yours. That should tell us something, and that will be the part of the basis of my next argument.

I'm sorry for double-posting, but I couldn't fit it all into one post. Stupid 10,000-character limit... >_>

QuoteI just read part of that article you just posted a link to, and I must make a point that a society of the forest would not be able to function or suit the needs of everyone. Thousands of years ago we went through a little something called the "Agricultral revolution", in which humans started to figure out how to plant and harvest food. As a result of this, population increased and groups of people became sedentary. With less work needed on food gathering, others could set about on other things and the sciences and arts and written language came to be.

While a society in which everyone lives in abundant forests and work as hunter/gatherers is an romanticized ideal, it is not a workable solution for feeding billions of people. That is why the skills needed in order to survive have changed so drastically from a hunter/gatherer society to agricultural, then to industrial, and finallly to where we are right now.

Of course it wouldn't. There's no one right way to live. Do you feel perfectly content with the system we're using? If you are, then great! Keep using it. Do I feel perfectly content with this system?  I wholeheartedly say that I do not, and if you think that I should just abandon my viewpoint on the ways that I'm spending my life and just continue living it without saying a simple word of protest and switch over to how you think everyone in our culture should live, then you surely are a conformist. I'm not trying to get you to learn the way I want to learn; I'm griping that I spent all that time learning stuff that I ended up being strongly pushed to learn and forget later when I could've gone my way and learn what I wanted to learn instead of having the government make that decision for me. To boot, I'm also trying to justify my point by stating the poor performance of our educational system and its possible hidden agenda, which still makes perfect sense to me, regardless of what you're trying to make me think otherwise.

"Living by the ways of the forest" could fulfill the wants and needs of some people, though, so why not let them live that way? Is it not our right to live? I'm definitely not saying that you should live (now to be replaced with "learn") my way, because if I were, then it would defeat the purpose.

Moving on, if what I learned is correct, then language came into existence before the events of the Agricultural Revolution. Hunters and gatherers needed communication to tell the others what was going on around them and where their prey was (if I remember correctly, too). Also, remember talk about prehistoric caves that were discovered? What was found on the walls? Drawings and carvings. Does that simply not count as art, or are you forgetting the cavemen? (I can hear the Geico cavemen complaining now... XD )

QuoteMags, I don't think you fully understand what people really need in order to succeed and remain competitive in today's job environment. You want to be one of those people with this naive point of view that 99% of what we learned doesn't have useful application? Then prepare to be shell-shocked when you get to college. College will make your point of view on this change completely, I guarantee it.

We will see about that. And we will see who will be eating all these words. If you do, then I'd have proven to the world that my viewpoint is still strong in my mind and would have provided a counterexample to your claim. If I do, however, then I would be gratified in actually seeing what you're trying to get me to see and then actually notice the applications of the things I was taught. For me, it's a win-win situation.

And for the record, just because my viewpoint is different than yours and is totally an antithesis of what most everyone thinks of our system doesn't mean it's naïve. Or it could be--and by that same token, your mindset is, too, naïve because it doesn't include every single variable in existence. But I find the former to be more true than the latter.

QuoteYou want proof of a good school? Okay, here's one: North Carolina School of Science and Math. That's a magnet school, very, very hard to get into. I know I tried, but I failed. I know others who have gone there, and because they went through all that, college seems easy by comparison (to some of them at least).

I meant a K-through-twelve school. Try again.

QuoteBut you seem not to appreciate the benefits. Sure some may see it as 'having stuff crammed down your throat', but the best of us won't see it that way. The best of us deserve to be inspired and to be exposed to as much knowledge as possible; to absorb it like a sponge. An inactive mind simply goes to waste, which is why school is so rigorous. There are some of us who are more than willing to accept the challenge of higher education. Think about it this way: School is probably the only place one will actually hear and learn about science and higher math and art (unless you have VERY cultured parents, something thats honestly statistically unlikely. I know my parents aren't really that cultured, though my grandma definitely helped with my love for reading and science and astronomy.)

And then I go back to the forgetfulness concept again. If I absorb that information and never use it, who's to say that I'm going to remember it by the time it's needed? I can't say this is the same for everyone, but the sad truth is that I'm one of those people who gradually forget that information. It's happened to me many times, one of them being a few years back in my geography class. I was made to memorize the capitals of countries and the names of featured lakes, seas, and rivers. Hardly once have I been in a situation where I could apply it and aid society in its daily shenanigans, so guess what happened? I forgot most of those capitals. And guess what else: I made sure that I had all those capitals in my head for the tests, and I took great pains to pass those tests. Did it make me any better skilled? No. My conclusion, then? I was only wasting my time. And I could keep going.

QuoteIf I were to link this topic on somewhere say, Facebook, starting a group around it, having people in college read over the discussion, I think you would find that most would disagree with you. These are bright students.

And I'm quite sure that the students who'd agree with me are bright, too.

So, are you saying that the people who don't disagree are not bright students? For that matter, does that mean that I'm not a bright student, receiving great regards from just about every single one of my teachers?

I doubt that that's what you've been trying to say, but I still suggest you reword that a bit so that it's not perceived that way.

Unless, of course, that is what you meant. *warning glare*

EDIT: I suppose we might want to bring it into either PMs or another topic, JQ.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, it's over now. We're moving on.

This week's main article is about the automobile industry in Detriot. The leaders of the automobile companies are asking D.C. for some support for a couple of months.

Let me draw the line again from skills that are general and specific. You do not seem to understand, (or are arguing for the sake of arguing) against an intersection of subjects. Every skill has a use, some skills are specific, applying to a certain discipline. Other skills are general, meaning that they are everyday skills. Still other skills are general-specific, in that they have applications in many disciplines, though not by all. Writing a Research paper is one example of a skill that you will need to go through college. If you choose a career in the sciences or in the humanities, you will likely need to do research for your discipline. Please understand the distinction and difference between the things I just said.

QuoteI meant a K-through-twelve school. Try again.

Dude... There aren't that many K through 12 schools. If I cite an example of a public school that is successful, you should accept it rather than write it off from criteria that most schools do not even meet.

QuoteThen what about having their parents teach them some of the required skills, then, hm? I'm quite sure that their parents, provided that they're successful in the workplace, as many are, would be perfectly capable of teaching their young ones about how to act professionally in a work setting or about any of the complex skills you mention here and there. If they need them to be successful, then is it really that implausible that they can't pass it on, at least in part, to the next generation?

You think all parents will be equally successful and be equally aware and capable of what skills need to be taught? Some parents DO teach their little ones, and that is very good. But as it stands now, parents barely parent, hardly even restrain their children. Your premise assumes that one has parents that are successful. Not everyone is gifted with that.

Throughout this whole topic, you're putting words in my mouth, I suggest you stop. Did I say those who agree with you would be stupid? No I did not. Mind, you are very intelligent, but a lot of the counterpoints you make require there be specific prerequisites met.

Nor did I ever say that indigenous groups could not decide for themselves how they want to live, you're simply putting words in my mouth. But the case is, much of the world's population lives in either an industrialized country or a country that is becoming industrialized. China and India contain roughly a third of the world's population and the Chinese in particular have had to cope with a very strict government in relation to how they can live their life.

Masterkey asked me to post the following on his behalf.

MEGAnova892 (9:17:16 PM): I go to a specialized high school in New York State, where the emphasis on reading and arithmetic is ridiculously high. I have, in my opinion, recieved a mediocre and inferior education in the arts. The Art class given to me in 6th and 7th grade and the Dance class given to me in 8th were utterly ridiculous, not to mention my music class barely had any music to hear.
MEGAnova892 (9:20:56 PM): So I feel like I was deprived. My skills in math and English are super high, and the workload is through the roof ridiculous. I would prefer if my school placd a heavier empasis on science and ther humanities. Not only do I find them more interestring, I find them more useful: having an adeqaute knowledge of art and musical history is essential to the advancement of our society, and no math or english could replace that.

MEGAnova892 (9:25:48 PM): I mean what the hell? Are you going to have grown men running around, not knowing a thing about chemistry or physics since they "don't need it?" It's called being well rounded and balanced. That's the goal. It's a Greco-Roman philosophy!

*sigh*

Magmarfire, think about what you're saying. School is meant to be the main place of learning. Sure some might see it as a chore, but others would be inspired to work. If they aren't exposed to it at school, how and where are they going to learn that it even exists? By having a well-rounded education, one is free to make the choice where one wants to go after one graduates from High School. What you are saying is basically "Eliminate Science! Eliminate the Arts! They can learn these things on their own!"

Children have to be exposed to these ideas and concepts. The main place to do this is at school. I found Public School to be very easy. Some might feel all of this is being shoved down their throat, but I assure you that it won't be the case for everyone.

Think about it. You're so upset that you learned specialized skills that aren't really geared to every application? You should pursue your interests. A child in grade school may only have a vague idea of what he or she is interested in.

I mean, sure there are problems with the  system, but the system requires dedicated and creative teachers with parents that are supportive in order to REALLY work. The school system isn't anywhere near as broken as you think it is. It is broken in some places though. But all it takes is a creative and inspiring teacher to make the difference in one's life.