Time Magazine

[darkphantomime]

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.

[Mysterious F.]

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.

[darkphantomime]

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.

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.

[MagmarFire]

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

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.

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.

. . .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 ) 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...

”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.

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.

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).

[darkphantomime]

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.

[MagmarFire]

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*

[darkphantomime]

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.

[Zelda Veteran]

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.

[MagmarFire]

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.

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. ^^;

[darkphantomime]

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

[Fishalicious]

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.

[MagmarFire]

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?)

[darkphantomime]

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

xxxxxxxxxxxx (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.

[MagmarFire]

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

Oh! My apologies! >_<

vtika4ka (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.

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.

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...

Ishmael 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 ], 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.

[Mysterious F.]

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?