Why first grade to 12th is completely useless, including parts of college ..

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm talking about mental development, hell, I'll even go as far as saying college is useless too since you don't really learn sh*t and even the stuff you are supposed to know for your profession, you don't really know it until you do the job.

1. Education doesn't encourage thinking, it just wants you to repeat and memorize.

The creator of the curriculum you are learning said this, "Memorization is the lowest level of thinking." Soak in that thought for a second. When was the last time you actually have to use your creative thinking skills in class? If you are the typical student, pretty close to never. Nerds aren't really smart, they're just better at memorizing sh*t than you are. This is the reason why nerds rarely know crap about the real world; and if they are truly smart, it's prob because of some lame hobby (warcraft, magic the gathering, etc.) that they were able to gain from to apply to real world experience. For the most part, people who get straight As are generally dumb as f*ck.

2. You don't need 12 years of education to learn all the stuff you need to learn.

If education truly centers itself around real learning and not rote memorization, the amount of stuff you need to learn only requires 2-3 years. Once you truly understand a concept, you don't need to memorize it. This is something many people don't seem to fully grasp. Memorization is comprehension. The fact you need to learn a topic over and over, and then have it regurgitate again in your first 2 years of college, proves beyond a shadow of doubt you're not really learning sh*t. This is the reason why they have to beat it in your mind over and over again: you're not learning sh*t and they need to remind you a few years later, only to have you forget it again once you graduate.

3. Apprenticeship > Education.

Before education, we have a thing call apprenticeship. A child learns from a true professional; the professional teaches him EVERYTHING from writing, math, reading, and, the most important part of education, HOW TO DO THE JOB. The lowest form of apprenticeship only takes 2 years, while the most difficult job takes no more than 6 years (Doctor for example). A kid can start his apprenticeship at the age of 13 and be a doctor at 19. Nowadays a kid has to go through 12 years of education and the best job he'll prob get is Mcdonald's if he doesn't waste his life another 4 years. Sad, but true.

[imnew09]

Whats really essential in todays society is knowing the right material for your career. However i do find shit that i learned from grade one to twelve helpful as part of growing up

[IamRAMBO24]

Whats really essential in todays society is knowing the right material for your career. However i do find shit that i learned from grade one to twelve helpful as part of growing up

How to be a better tool to society?

[falc39]

I agree a lot with 2 and 3, but at the same time I would say that the time I spent in public school wasn't completely useless. I disagree that memorization is useless or at least the way you are putting it. When you are young and first starting to learn things, it will take a while for full comprehension and complete understanding. Memorization is like training wheels, sometimes your mind has to spend a lot of time with something without full understanding before it starts seeing it at a deeper level. Rote memorization is actually helpful and your mind uses it to pick up on a lot of things, like learning a language or a technique in sports, etc.

But yes, looking back at my public school years I would say 90% of junior high and half of high school was complete garbage.

[Nick Young]

even university is pointless for many subjects. You learn more and become more employable doing a specialized engineering apprenticeship then you would with an engineering degree.

[IamRAMBO24]

I agree a lot with 2 and 3, but at the same time I would say that the time I spent in public school wasn't completely useless. I disagree that memorization is useless or at least the way you are putting it. When you are young and first starting to learn things, it will take a while for full comprehension and complete understanding. Memorization is like training wheels, sometimes your mind has to spend a lot of time with something without full understanding before it starts seeing it at a deeper level. Rote memorization is actually helpful and your mind uses it to pick up on a lot of things, like learning a language or a technique in sports, etc.

But yes, looking back at my public school years I would say 90% of junior high and half of high school was complete garbage.

This is typically a misconception of true learning.

When you learn a concept or an idea and you fully grasp that idea, memorization is a natural process of it. It is hard to forget that concept once you truly know it. When you are being told over and over again what the concept is, this means you haven't fully comprehend it, thus you will only remember it for a bit to pass the test and throw the entire concept out the window once you are not required to memorize it anymore. That's not true learning.

Take photosynthesis for example: one of the easiest sh*t to learn in grade school, but many students struggle because they are left to memorize a bunch of sh*tty vocabs. It's basically a plant getting energy from the sun. Whoopti f*ckin doo .. how about teaching the kids the concepts first instead of having them memorize a bunch of fancy vocabs that rarely develope their mind?

[Out_In_Utah]

OP trying to justify why he dropped out of school?

Why 1st grade to 12th is completely necessary: School leads to better jobs.

[IamRAMBO24]

OP trying to justify why he dropped out of school?

Why 1st grade to 12th is completely necessary: School leads to better jobs.

Nice try.

But I finished my argument with apprenticeship, which is by far a better education when it comes to performing your job well.

Since this is a basketball forum, I will cite the sport: basketball is the highest form of apprenticeship. Most ball players learn through apprenticeship, now if you apply that to teachers, engineers, doctors, hell, even flipping burgers, and give them 12 years of it instead of memorizing a bunch of sh*t they don't truly understand, trust me, we'll have a hell of a lot more professionals than dead beat dads in society today.

[Out_In_Utah]

Nice try.

But I finished my argument with apprenticeship, which is by far a better education when it comes to performing your job well.

Since this is a basketball forum, I will cite the sport: basketball is the highest form of apprenticeship. Most ball players learn through apprenticeship, now if you apply that to teachers, engineers, doctors, hell, even flipping burgers, and give them 12 years of it instead of memorizing a bunch of sh*t they don't truly understand, trust me, we'll have a hell of a lot more professionals than dead beat dads in society today.

And how many people have landed apprenticeships without completing a single grade between Kindergarten and 12th grade?

[IamRAMBO24]

And how many people have landed apprenticeships without completing a single grade between Kindergarten and 12th grade?

:facepalm

Apprenticeship was the universal education before public education. Education was a means to create more worker drones and less professionals. Do you think we would have a Mcdonald's worker today if apprenticeship was the norm?

[DonD13]

why learn how to read and write if you could just play ball all day :rockon:

[DonD13]

:facepalm

Apprenticeship was the universal education before public education. Education was a means to create more worker drones and less professionals. Do you think we would have a Mcdonald's worker today if apprenticeship was the norm?

it's the other way around and always was.

if you want a drone, you send them to work (apprenticeship) right away.

[IamRAMBO24]

why learn how to read and write if you could just play ball all day :rockon:

The point of education is to get a job right?

Why are we spending 12 years not learning the job when we could be doing it? And seriously, if education is truly successful at teaching reading and writing, then why do we have so many illiterate people out there?

And personally I can give a sh*t if Iverson knows how to read and write. That's not relevant in the world of basketball: he does his job well and gets paid millions for it. Same goes for any profession, if you can do your job well, I can give two flying f*cks if you've never read moby d*ck.

[IamRAMBO24]

it's the other way around and always was.

if you want a drone, you send them to work (apprenticeship) right away.

Nope.

Apprenticeship creates professionals out of any student. It goes to reason if you learn a job from a true professional at a young age for years, you are going to know that job in the back of your head by the time you are a young adult and ready to work, in fact, you will know it so well it'll stay with you for the rest of your life rendering you completely unemployed because you have a skill worth putting on your resume.

12 years of education and yet the best these kids can come up with is flipping burgers at Mcdonalds. Get the f*ck out of here.

[ballup]

This topic isn't really a button pusher as you'd like to think it is. Anyone who has been through high school can tell you that the current United States education system is pretty flawed and kids don't actually learn anything aside from basic skills and social behavior. I can't say for sure about the science, but a large focus on memorization could be a good thing. Maybe not an optimal strategy though.

School before college is geared towards college prep. They build you up so that you are able to take the lowest level classes in college. They do repeat early topics in college, but that's because colleges cannot assume that every student is up to par. Not every high school has the same standards and there is no easy way of coming up with a halfway point in which all students can be stimulated.

Apprenticeships are rare these days for a majority of desirable jobs unless you are talking about internships, but that requires at least a participation in a college these days.

School does lead to better jobs only because more jobs are requiring candidates to have higher degrees, when it's probably not necessary. Since more kids are going to college, companies have more defined "talent" from which to choose for their entry level positions.

[Out_In_Utah]

And personally I can give a sh*t if Iverson knows how to read and write. That's not relevant in the world of basketball: he does his job well and gets paid millions for it. Same goes for any profession, if you can do your job well, I can give two flying f*cks if you've never read moby d*ck.

So what if somebody spends 12 years doing nothing but preparing for 1 profession (like basketball) and they decide that they hate it or they simply suck at it? You have just wasted 12 years of a child's life and now they have no other skills. School provides a basis of general knowledge that people can narrow down to something more specific. School followed by apprenticeship is ideal, not school alone or apprenticeship alone.

[ballup]

It's silly to expect a kid to really know what they want to do. Even young adults don't know what they want to do.

[DonD13]

yeah I'm pro general education too

you could create bunch of humanoid who can only do one thing but what would that bring to society?

but yes, of course, you can improve the education system a lot.
the way the school days are structured and how you teach things is pretty much the same as in the Middle Ages. In the information age, other skills are required....

[DonD13]

It's silly to expect a kid to really know what they want to do. Even young adults don't know what they want to do.

this too.

you would have 10000 future nba stars and one accountant :lol

[IamRAMBO24]

So what if somebody spends 12 years doing nothing but preparing for 1 profession (like basketball) and they decide that they hate it or they simply suck at it? You have just wasted 12 years of a child's life and now they have no other skills. School provides a basis of general knowledge that people can narrow down to something more specific. School followed by apprenticeship is ideal, not school alone or apprenticeship alone.

Another misconception of apprenticeship. Reading, writing, and learning life experience is a part of it, and not just restricted to education, but let's get back to the main purpose of education: to get a job.

Education doesn't necessarily get you a job or teach you the ability to read and write, in fact, based on its track record, it has failed miserably at it, so to lay claim it is the be all end all in those areas is nothing more than a misconception.

At least apprenticeship guaranteeds you a job; you can't say the same for education when it comes to all those things, hell, let alone anything that revolves around real world experience. Nada. Nothing. Real talk, it's a flawed system, overrated, and needs to be re-evaluated.

[ballup]

this too.

you would have 10000 future nba stars and one accountant :lol
You'd can say the same about doctors.

[IamRAMBO24]

It's silly to expect a kid to really know what they want to do. Even young adults don't know what they want to do.

The only reason why kids don't know what they want to do is because education keeps on beating around the bush with a thousand curriculums that do nothing more than confuse the f*ck out of them and not allowing them to focus on one goal to be truly good at it.

To be truly good at something, you have to focus on it. Education is a master at confusion.

[ballup]

yeah I'm pro general education too

you could create bunch of humanoid who can only do one thing but what would that bring to society?

but yes, of course, you can improve the education system a lot.
the way the school days are structured and how you teach things is pretty much the same as in the Middle Ages. In the information age, other skills are required....
I wouldn't say I'm pro general education in the same sense. I do believe that society should have a general education to make our future generations more well rounded, but kids need to learn a particular skill. There should be a different system where there are less hours in school, but time after school is allotted to giving students the opportunity to see how different occupations function on a daily basis.

[Out_In_Utah]

Another misconception of apprenticeship. Reading, writing, and learning life experience is a part of it, and not just restricted to the profession, but let's get back to the main purpose of education: to get a job.

Education doesn't necessarily get you a job or teach you the ability to read and write, in fact, based on its track record, it has failed miserably at it, so to lay claim it is the be all end all in those areas is nothing more than a misconception.

At least apprenticeship guaranteeds you a job; you can't say the same for education when it comes to reading, writing, job, hell anything that revolves around real world experience. Nada. Nothing. Real talk, it's a flawed system, overrated, and needs to be re-evaluated.

1. Sounds like you are talking more about a mentor rather than an apprenticeship, which is like a mentor relationship but is used for instruction in a particular trade, art, or business.

2. Who claimed school to be the "be all end all"? I even stated that it is best to have school and then have an apprenticeship.

3. Apprenticeship does not guarantee you a job. There are tons of people who get apprenticeships that don't get hired full time. And that does not even include the people that decide after their hands on training that they don't want to continue in a particular field.

[Out_In_Utah]

The only reason why kids don't know what they want to do is because education keeps on beating around the bush with a thousand curriculums that do nothing more than confuse the f*ck out of them and not allowing them to focus on one goal to be truly good at it.

To be truly good at something, you have to focus on it. Education is a master at confusion.

You must be a big fan of this book:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c4/The_Giver_Cover.gif/200px-The_Giver_Cover.gif

[IamRAMBO24]

yeah I'm pro general education too

you could create bunch of humanoid who can only do one thing but what would that bring to society?

but yes, of course, you can improve the education system a lot.
the way the school days are structured and how you teach things is pretty much the same as in the Middle Ages. In the information age, other skills are required....

Not one thing d*ckwad.

Apprenticeship can be applied to all fields based on the preference of the student. Back then, when it was the norm, we had professionals from all walks of life, and not the mass majority flipping burgers for a living.

Education has produced more fast food workers than any form of learning. Fact. The evidence speaks for themselves.

[ballup]

The only reason why kids don't know what they want to do is because education keeps on beating around the bush with a thousand curriculums that do nothing more than confuse the f*ck out of them and not allowing them to focus on one subject to be truly good at it.

To be truly good at something, you have to focus on it. Education is a master at confusion.
No. Kids don't know what they want in a profession because they haven't matured enough to be able to decide such a decision on their own. If you gave kids that power early on, a large majority would end up heavily regretting their choice and would steer away from that choice in the future even if it was one that could actually work out for them. If they were given trial runs of professions of which they'd like to be a part, that'd be different.

[Out_In_Utah]

No. Kids don't know what they want in a profession because they haven't matured enough to be able to decide such a decision on their own. If you gave kids that power early on, a large majority would end up heavily regretting their choice and would steer away from that choice in the future even if it was one that could actually work out for them. If they were given trial runs of professions of which they'd like to be a part, that'd be different.

Imagine society with 25% astronauts, 25% fire fighters, 25% princesses, and 25% doctors :bowdown:

[IamRAMBO24]

No. Kids don't know what they want in a profession because they haven't matured enough to be able to decide such a decision on their own. If you gave kids that power early on, a large majority would end up heavily regretting their choice and would steer away from that choice in the future even if it was one that could actually work out for them. If they were given trial runs of professions of which they'd like to be a part, that'd be different.

A profession is nothing more than making money. If you teach a kid a skill, he will have that skill for the rest of his life. He will know how to make money and will always have a job because he has a skill to show for.

[Out_In_Utah]

Not one thing d*ckwad.

Apprenticeship can be applied to all fields based on the preference of the student. Back then, when it was the norm, we had professionals from all walks of life, and not the mass majority flipping burgers for a living.

Education has produced more fast food workers than any form of learning. Fact. The evidence speaks for themselves.

Right now the average classroom is something like 30 students per teacher. How do you propose we get that number down for apprenticeships?

And "back then, when it was the norm," children didn't have as much choice in what they did. You often just did whatever the hell your parents did (Dad was a farmer? You are a farmer. Dad was a blacksmith? You are a blacksmith), UNLESS you went to school to broaden your horizons.

[IamRAMBO24]

Imagine society with 25% astronauts, 25% fire fighters, 25% princesses, and 25% doctors :bowdown:

It is better than flipping burgers.

It is now an established fact we have more people flipping burgers than people with skills. How anyone can still defend education is beyond me.

[Out_In_Utah]

A profession is nothing more than making money. If you teach a kid a skill, he will have that skill for the rest of his life. He will know how to make money and will always have a job because he has a skill to show for.

And life will suck as that child is just a drone of his 1 trade. Congrats, you have figured out how to knock humanity back to the way people lived 1000 years ago.

[Out_In_Utah]

It is better than flipping burgers.

It is now an established fact we have more people flipping burgers than people with skills. How anyone can still defend education is beyond me.

People are smarter today on average than they were back in the day. And guess what? The smartest 10% have taken more school.

[Out_In_Utah]

How anyone can still defend education is beyond me.

I'm done. Troll thread verified.

[IamRAMBO24]

And life will suck as that child is just a drone of his 1 trade. Congrats, you have figured out how to knock humanity back to the way people lived 1000 years ago.

He has a skill. Any skill nowadays is worth a middle income in today's work force. The only reason why we have such low pay is because we have unskilled workers.

This is because education has failed miserably to create skilled ones. Real talk.

[IamRAMBO24]

People are smarter today on average than they were back in the day. And guess what? The smartest 10% have taken more school.

I disagree, the average american is f*ckin stupid as hell. If education truly works, everybody who goes through the system for 12 years would of gotten something out of it.

Even college students tend to forget what they learn once they go on their summer break. It is a failed system. Period.

[DonD13]

It is better than flipping burgers.

It is now an established fact we have more people flipping burgers than people with skills. How anyone can still defend education is beyond me.

:eek:

thank God I don't live in the USA!

[ballup]

A profession is nothing more than making money. If you teach a kid a skill, he will have that skill for the rest of his life. He will know how to make money and will always have a job because he has a skill to show for.
All professions require skills.

[brantonli]

:facepalm

Apprenticeship was the universal education before public education. Education was a means to create more worker drones and less professionals. Do you think we would have a Mcdonald's worker today if apprenticeship was the norm?

Awesome, I so knew what I wanted to be an apprentice in when I was 15. Education helps broaden your options, you go into apprenticeship and who knows if you made the right career decision at a young age.

[IamRAMBO24]

Awesome, I so knew what I wanted to be an apprentice in when I was 15. Education helps broaden your options, you go into apprenticeship and who knows if you made the right career decision at a young age.

If you need 12 years of education to finally figure out what you want to do, then you are truly f*cked. This is the reason why there will always be someone who is better than you when you finally decide on a career.

[ballup]

Or maybe there are just so many people with varying traits that it's highly unlikely that you are the best in any field.

[brantonli]

If you need 12 years of education to finally figure out what you want to do, then you are truly f*cked. This is the reason why there will always be someone who is better than you when you finally decide on a career.

I'm sure I'm being trolled right now. I wanted to be a fricking astronaut when I was young, should I have gone and apprentice myself with NASA when I was 10? Even after university, people spend years not 100% sure knowing whether the job they came out to do is right for them, nevermind making that decision even earlier.

[Balla_Status]

Trig laws are useless but it's the thought process and the time you put into figuring out how it works is what matters. Not the answer and not whether you'll use it in the future.

That's why engineers are valuable and why we dominate the job market. Our thought process.

Some majors are useless but I do believe engineers should be taking some psych/socio/phil/english classes in college alongside the math/science courses.

Not much memorization in engineering/physics as there is in biology/medical sciences.

Look, I'm not the most "learned" in the english/lib arts world but I think you may have a point. I didn't want to read books like Call of the Wild, Shakespeare and Great Expectations. I wanted to read shit that interested me and that's what teachers and the education system should support. You know what two of my favorite classes were? Dual Credit english and government my senior year. They weren't part of the public school system and taught me how to think. We read outrageous shit and I was able to do my final essay on a book of my choice. Not some shit and boring book like The Great Gatsby and Great Expectations thats been analyzed over and over again that if you've analyzed it "wrong" you were marked incorrect for it. WTF? This isn't science/math. I interpret what I want to interpret. I read a book about Oasis and Britpop in the 90s. Watched a movie about it and read some other sources and thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I had never been so excited about an english paper. That's what's missing these days and it's not entirely the teachers fault.

[ace23]

:facepalm

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm sure I'm being trolled right now. I wanted to be a fricking astronaut when I was young, should I have gone and apprentice myself with NASA when I was 10? Even after university, people spend years not 100% sure knowing whether the job they came out to do is right for them, nevermind making that decision even earlier.

Let's just say at a young age, you want to be an astronaut. Most kids at a young age usually decide what they want to be when they grow up; it is education that gets them all mixed up on what they truly want to be. There is absolutely no proof education leads to direct goals. If it's anything, it makes it more confusing to have a set mindset than to have one. In fact, education even pays guidance counselors to set the students on a focused path, but for the most part, they're useless.

Most kids already know what they want to be even before age 10, so let's say they get to train on that skill set once they hit 13 for 6 years. I don't care if you want to be an astronaut, doctor, engineer, or just flipping burgers, I am willing to bet you will an expert in that area even before you hit purberty if you truly focus on your skill instead of all this rubbish that you supposedly need to learn before you begin it.

Ponder on that thought for a second.

It is a misconception that education provides goals. If it's anything, it is antithetical to it since it tells students they can be EVERYTHING and not truly allowing them to focus on what they wanted to be when they were 10 years old.

[nathanjizzle]

If you need 12 years of education to finally figure out what you want to do, then you are truly f*cked. This is the reason why there will always be someone who is better than you when you finally decide on a career.

so you want 6 year old kids to choose what they want to be when they grow up and follow a 12 year "apprenticeship" based on what they chose as a 6 year old? good point.:facepalm

[nathanjizzle]

Let's just say at a young age, you want to be an astronaut. Most kids at a young age usually decide what they want to be when they grow up; it is education that gets them all mixed up on what they truly want to be. There is absolutely no proof education leads to direct goals. If it's anything, it makes it more confusing to have a set mindset than to have one. In fact, education even pays guidance counselors to set the students on a focused path, but for the most part, they're useless.

Most kids already know what they want to be even before age 10, so let's say they get to train on that skill set once they hit 13 for 6 years. I don't care if you want to be an astronaut, doctor, engineer, or just flipping burgers, I am willing to bet you will an expert in that area even before you hit purberty if you truly focus on your skill instead of all this rubbish that you supposedly need to learn before you begin it.

Ponder on that thought for a second.

It is a misconception that education provides goals. If it's anything, it is antithetical to it since it tells students they can be EVERYTHING and not truly allowing them to focus on what they wanted to be when they were 10 years old.

the education system gives people the freedom of choosing what they want to do for a living. when you graduate highschool, you can be anything you want, not just one profession that you chose when you are 6 years old. :roll:

you are a very facevalue thinker, if i can even call you a thinker.

[IamRAMBO24]

the education system gives people the freedom of choosing what they want to do for a living. when you graduate highschool, you can be anything you want, not just one profession that you chose when you are 6 years old. :roll:

you are a very facevalue thinker, if i can even call you a thinker.

If nathanjizzle is arguing against my premise, let's just admit I'm right. C'mon now, real talk, do you really want this idiot to be on your side from an intellectual standpoint? I already know the answer. Thanks.

[CeltsGarlic]

omg you only are thinking from the government side of the story. For you it seems like people should just work, spend and repeat...

You should know that I always do my job half assed, I party hard, I spend most of the time working by chatting with friends, and I live my life the happiest way I could. Everyone likes me, so promotions come just like that. Beat it.

[DonD13]

it's a well-known scientific fact that OP is actually Squidward


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/Squidward.png



mad at the world ✓

works at a burger place ✓

thinks is smarter than everybody else ✓

has no friends ✓

[nathanjizzle]

If nathanjizzle is arguing against my premise, let's just admit I'm right. C'mon now, real talk, do you really want this idiot to be on your side from an intellectual standpoint? I already know the answer. Thanks.

none of your threads are ever right. you just isolate an idea and exaggerate and glorify it without discussing points that are objective and critical. and when someones makes a point that completely shatters your delusion you resort to name calling or stating off hand that you are "right". common, you didnt even have the common sense to think of how stupid it is for a 6 year old to choose their profession and for someone to teach them for free for 12 years, oh wait, you want little kids to work? :roll: great thinking!

the same guy that looks down on a structured society believes a child should choose what it wants to do with its life at 6 years old and apprentice it for 12 years.

i wouldnt expect quality thinking from someone that believes the government killed paul walker.

[IamRAMBO24]

none of your threads are ever right. you just isolate an idea and exaggerate and glorify it without discussing points that are objective and critical. and when someones makes a point that completely shatters your delusion you resort to name calling or stating off hand that you are "right". common, you didnt even have the common sense to think of how stupid it is for a 6 year old to choose their profession and for someone to teach them for free for 12 years, oh wait, you want little kids to work? :roll: great thinking!

the same guy that looks down on a structured society believes a child should choose what it wants to do with its life at 6 years old and apprentice it for 12 years.

i wouldnt expect quality thinking from someone that believes the government killed paul walker.

I like how you are making up stuff about me. :facepalm

The fact you are disagreeing with me makes me that much more confident in my premise. I would worry if you actually agree with me. Thanks for the confirmation.

[nathanjizzle]

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2im8780.jpg

[niko]

The point of education is to get a job right?

Why are we spending 12 years not learning the job when we could be doing it? And seriously, if education is truly successful at teaching reading and writing, then why do we have so many illiterate people out there?

And personally I can give a sh*t if Iverson knows how to read and write. That's not relevant in the world of basketball: he does his job well and gets paid millions for it. Same goes for any profession, if you can do your job well, I can give two flying f*cks if you've never read moby d*ck.
No, the point of education is to learn how to think. How to analyze and approach a problem. Also how to be part of society , to socialize, to get along with others. It's a social thing. That's a huge part of school. It's also supposed to be a safe place to develop into small human beings.

At the same time you learn what you like to do, and what you are good at, and thus can move toward whatever job you want. Exactly how would that work if you just dropped people into apprenticeship as soon as possible?

You're fat, be a baker!

Does your job at McDonalds give you such satisfaction that you've decided the world works better if you got dropped there at age 5?

[nathanjizzle]

simp thinking-"Why are we spending 12 years not learning the job when we could be doing it"

objective and critical thinking-
"No, the point of education is to learn how to think. How to analyze and approach a problem. Also how to be part of society , to socialize, to get along with others. It's a social thing.

At the same time you learn what you like to do, and what you are good at, and thus can move toward whatever job you want. Exactly how would that work if you just dropped people into apprenticeship as soon as possible?"

see the difference?

[LilKateMoss]

even university is pointless for many subjects. You learn more and become more employable doing a specialized engineering apprenticeship then you would with an engineering degree.
...says the supposed architecture dropout lolmic writer :oldlol:

[ace23]

even university is pointless for many subjects. You learn more and become more employable doing a specialized engineering apprenticeship then you would with an engineering degree.
:roll: No you don't.

[Duderonomy]

OP trying to justify why he dropped out of school?

Why 1st grade to 12th is completely necessary: School leads to better jobs.
Not only that, even if you have a good paying job you need baslc skills to manage your finances and to work well with others.

[Nick Young]

it's the other way around and always was.

if you want a drone, you send them to work (apprenticeship) right away.
youre so confused kid. University breeds worked drones. Apprenticeships breed employable experienced and skilled specialists.

[dr.hee]

even university is pointless for many subjects. You learn more and become more employable doing a specialized engineering apprenticeship then you would with an engineering degree.

Is this post based on real life employment rate data or just pulled out of your uneducated ass?

[niko]

youre so confused kid. University breeds worked drones. Apprenticeships breed employable experienced and skilled specialists.
As Engineers? That's just patently false.

[Nick Young]

As Engineers? That's just patently false.
not at all, sport. Not at all. Who do you think would get a job first: some kid with a university degree and minimal experience or a kid whose been working 6 years getting trained up by a seasoned professional working on real live projects? You're smart about some things but incredibly naive about others.

[dr.hee]

not at all, sport. Not at all. Who do you think would get a job first: some kid with a university degree and minimal experience or a kid whose been working 6 years getting trained up by a seasoned professional working on real live projects? You're smart about some things but incredibly naive about others.

Then show numbers proving your claim:facepalm

[niko]

not at all, sport. Not at all. Who do you think would get a job first: some kid with a university degree and minimal experience or a kid whose been working 6 years getting trained up by a seasoned professional working on real live projects? You're smart about some things but incredibly naive about others.

What kind of Engineers are you talking about? My friend is a civil engineer in Japan. He has a very detailed science and math background. He also worked with his father (also a civil engineer) for years. Some person with just the education part wouldn't be very good, you need to get the education background too. Some of it is book learning which you then use in real life.

This isn't a baker, not everything can be just felt through. Are you thinking an apprenticeship also includes classwork time? It's nice if the bridge does not fall down, and not all of that can be learned on the job.

Even what I do, I'm an analyst. A lot of the techniques and industry knowledge I got after school. But a lot of the math skills, the finance theories, the accounting basis I learned from school. In a job your bosses don't have time to sit and have accounting lessons and these are things patently you need to be taught. They aren't intuitive, and they aren't clear from looking at financial statements. You need both.

[ace23]

not at all, sport. Not at all. Who do you think would get a job first: some kid with a university degree and minimal experience or a kid whose been working 6 years getting trained up by a seasoned professional working on real live projects? You're smart about some things but incredibly naive about others.
:roll:

You're clueless.

There's a difference between a technician and an actual engineer, between knowing how to use toys and actually knowing how things work and how they should be designed. Little technician apprentices don't know jack shit compared to an actual engineer. You literally cannot become an engineer until you graduate from school and get a degree.

[dr.hee]

:roll:

You're clueless.

There's a difference between a technician and an actual engineer, between knowing how to use toys and actually knowing how things work and how they should be designed. Little technician apprentices don't know jack shit compared to an actual engineer. You literally cannot become an engineer until you graduate from school and get a degree.

This. Also, the technologies dimwits like NickYoung and Rambo are using to post their nonsense as well as other achievements they're benefitting from like modern healthcare are a product of the very system they're naively critizising in this thread. Is it perfect? Hell no. But the way these imbeciles try to make their points is just embarrassingly simple minded.

You can find many things wrong with modern western approaches to education. But not on the pedestrian level of Rambo and NickYoung...a bunch of losers trying to rationalize their academical failings by declaring the system has failed as a whole. No it hasn't...it has produced countless great minds and contributors to human progress. Just didn't work out for these two...they should simply accept their mediocrity and move on. Go flip some burgers or try to get along with co-workers in your low level accounting job. Nothing wrong with being average.

[tmacattack33]

You should definitely have not included grades 1 to 6.

In those years you learn how to read, add, subtract, multiply, divide, write correctly with good grammar, etc. Those are fundamentals that you need anywhere.

[dr.hee]

You should definitely have not included grades 1 to 6.

In those years you learn how to read, add, subtract, multiply, divide, write correctly with good grammar, etc. Those are fundamentals that you need anywhere.

It's also the time where social interactions with peers become increasingly frequent and important to personal development...which is ironic considering the threads OP has made in the past trying to rationalize his social ineptitude at work :oldlol:

[STATUTORY]

from perspective of society compulsory education is daycare for some and a valuable experience for others

but regardless, it's beneficial to have teens in a secure and regulated environment for those years

[Dresta]

It is pretty obvious to me that an intelligent person is going to learn very little from the mediocrities that teach in most schools and universities, and most of what is useful that is learnt by intelligent people comes as the fruit of their own inquiries, rather than fed to them by some pedagogue. Other than the skills of reading and writing and basic arithmetic (which they will pick up quickly), your average teacher has little else to offer an intelligent pupil, and unintelligent people are generally wasting their time pursuing formal education much further. Germany splits children in this way at the age of 14, and they have a far more productive workforce as a result. It's not like you are given sacred knowledge at school which can't be acquired by yourself either. -

'...When the American pedagogue became a professional, and began to acquire a huge armamentarium of technic, the trade of teaching declined, for only inferior men were willing to undergo a long training in obvious balderdash.'

'The public schools of the United States were damaged very seriously when they were taken over by the State. So long as they were privately operated the persons in charge of them retained a certain amount of professional autonomy, and with it went a considerable dignity. But now they are all petty jobholders, and show the psychology that goes with the trade. They have invented a bogus science of pedagogy to salve their egos, but it remains hollow to any intelligent eye. What they may teach or not teach is not determined by themselves, or even by any exercise of sound reason, but by the interaction of politics on the one side and quack theorists on the other. Even savages have reached a better solution of the educational problem. Their boys are taught, not by puerile eunuchs, but by their best men, and the process of education among them really educates. This is certainly not true of ours. Many a boy of really fine mind is ruined in school. Along with a few sound values, many false ones are thrust into his thinking, and he inevitably acquires something of the attitude of mind of the petty bureaucrats told off to teach him. In college he may recover somewhat, for the college teacher is relatively more free than the pedagogue lower down the scale. But even in college education has become corrupted by buncombe, and so the boy on the border line of intelligence is apt to be damaged rather than benefited. Under proper care he might be pushed upward. As it is, he is shoved downward. Certainly everyday observation shows that the average college course produces no visible augmentation in the intellectual equipment and capacity of the student. Not long ago, in fact, an actual investigation in Pennsylvania demonstrated that students often regress so much during their four years that the average senior is less intelligent, by all know tests, than the average freshman. Part of this may be due to the fact that many really intelligent boys, as soon as they discover the vanity of the so-called education on tap, quit college in disgust, but in large part, I suspect, it is a product of the deadening effect of pedagogy.'

'Consider [the pedagogue] in his highest incarnation: the university professor. What is his function? Simply to pass on to fresh generations of numskulls a body of so-called knowledge that is fragmentary, unimportant, and, in large part, untrue. His whole professional activity is circumscribed by the prejudices, vanities and avarices of his university trustees, i.e., a committee of soap-boilers, nail manufacturers, bank-directors and politicians. The moment he offends these vermin he is undone. He cannot so much as think aloud without running a risk of having them fan his pantaloons.'

[imnew09]

How to be a better tool to society?

Not necessarily a "tool," but a better person to society as we adapt to the basic moral concepts of life through grade school.

On the other hand, I do find it useless in a sense as I'm re-learning all the material from grade 1 to 12 in college. But because of those concepts that I've learned from grade school, I could use them as a background information that help facilitate the subjects i'm confronting in college.

I don't really know man, I feel it's more of a subjective perspective rather than an objective one. And I'm pretty mind blown as I'm writing this shit

[Swaggin916]

How to be a better tool to society?

A better tool for somebody. Let's face it, most people are tools. Most people don't want to make the machine, they just want to run it (or part of it). It's not like they aren't needed though so if that's what they are happy doing then so be it. I think math is the curriculum that separates problem solvers from everyone else in school. It doesn't necessarily mean they are thinkers, they can just think to solve problems. Sure the equations are memorization as well, but there are always curveballs that test kids knowledge.

There are so many variables here though. If a nerd only reads for grades, then yea they are probably not going to be any smarter then some gamer playing for rank. It's the same things. Those who read many books for knowledge though are typically very intelligent because they are well versed on many things and it's for the purpose of raising consciousness. I knew a kid in my English class that did this and he was running warehouses by 19. He knew that he knew a lot, but he was also humble... He just wanted to inform people about things. A person could just as easily turn into a total know it all though if they aren't reading things that check the ego though.


from perspective of society compulsory education is daycare for some and a valuable experience for others

I like this statement.

[Rameek]

This thread makes me :lol

When you dont know something or why something is done lets call it useless. String some words together make a post that makes no sense...

Memorization is comprehension :banana:

How ever you retain information via memorization, osmosis how you apply that information in any capacity in a different form is called learning when done correctly its understanding....

On many different levels critical thinking is applied but because people in here dont really know what this means it gets lost... Sometimes you have to repeat information then add on more information, use what you call repeated information in a different capacity.

You start a game some people start on beginner level learn some critically think and progress to the next level...
Those that start on expert level learn the hard way critically think what works and doesnt work then progress trial by fire....

You have the social development where people learn boundaries, appropriate behavior in different settings, etc....

I do agree after leaving the educational system in the US for about 10 years and experiencing 2 other countries educational system for that period. Upon my return here I see things arent working out here for the most part. It's Sad....

[Dresta]

A better tool for somebody. Let's face it, most people are tools. Most people don't want to make the machine, they just want to run it (or part of it). It's not like they aren't needed though so if that's what they are happy doing then so be it. I think math is the curriculum that separates problem solvers from everyone else in school. It doesn't necessarily mean they are thinkers, they can just think to solve problems. Sure the equations are memorization as well, but there are always curveballs that test kids knowledge.

There are so many variables here though. If a nerd only reads for grades, then yea they are probably not going to be any smarter then some gamer playing for rank. It's the same things. Those who read many books for knowledge though are typically very intelligent because they are well versed on many things and it's for the purpose of raising consciousness. I knew a kid in my English class that did this and he was running warehouses by 19. He knew that he knew a lot, but he was also humble... He just wanted to inform people about things. A person could just as easily turn into a total know it all though if they aren't reading things that check the ego though.



If only school encouraged this. Unfortunately, what it really does, is instill rules and formulae, without any fundamental understanding of what lies behind them - simple exam preparation, geared to get as many as possible over a below mediocre standard. In English, the shortest books make the syllabus (Gatsby, Mice and Men, Huck Finn etc.), and are examined in a dry and uninteresting way, focusing far more on details than general ideas. In Maths and the Sciences methods are taught without explaining why, and they are taught from dumbed down, lowest common denominator textbooks, that are completely uninspiring.

It was only once i started reading books myself, after i'd finished school, that i began to find the stuff interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if public education deterred more intelligent people from learning than it encouraged. We have more and more people taking degrees, yet it seems we have less people with a real passion for knowledge and understanding. Universities are just full of people who simply do not belong there. Education at the moment is generally working to press down the top and drag up the bottom. It helps those who don't really benefit from formal education, while depressing those who have the most to gain and the most to give society.

[nathanjizzle]

i know about the custom car industry. i know a few guys that have not went to college but they can build a steel tube chassis for a car, Thats only because they saw someone else do it and they know how to weld pieces of steel tubing together to make a chassis and know that its strong enough.
however, an engineering student not only can build a chassis but he/she knows how to caculate the strength of each welded steel tubing to definitely and truly know how it functions as a integral structural part.

thats the difference between college educated vs's someone that has learned to do the job, "copying" vs "calculating"

[bladefd]

The main point of K-12 is to learn how to think for yourself, to develop common sense, learn how to deal with other human-beings, and gain basic knowledge. The point of it is not to memorize facts - the average person will not remember 90% of specific facts they learn. Does that mean all of it is useless? No.

IamRambo has a tendency to try to sound controversial even when it's not necessary. Education is a key to success, and do not try to undermine that axiom. You can say that teaching is behind in this country due to teachers not knowing how to teach and students not paying attention as they should be, but don't involve yourself in hyperbole to point out why ALL of k-12 is useless. That is incorrect and a fallacy. In fact, it could be considered forming a straw-man argument in some ways.

'Since students cannot remember most of what they are taught, k-12 is useless.' I paraphrased it, but tell me how that is not a straw-man argument you impose?

[Dresta]

The main point of K-12 is to learn how to think for yourself, to develop common sense, learn how to deal with other human-beings, and gain basic knowledge. The point of it is not to memorize facts - the average person will not remember 90% of specific facts they learn. Does that mean all of it is useless? No.

IamRambo has a tendency to try to sound controversial even when it's not necessary. Education is a key to success, and do not try to undermine that axiom. You can say that teaching is behind in this country due to teachers not knowing how to teach and students not paying attention as they should be, but don't involve yourself in hyperbole to point out why ALL of k-12 is useless. That is incorrect and a fallacy. In fact, it could be considered forming a straw-man argument in some ways.

'Since students cannot remember most of what they are taught, k-12 is useless.' I paraphrased it, but tell me how that is not a straw-man argument you impose?
School teaches people to think for themselves? Don't be ridiculous. School does the opposite: it teaches people what to think, not how to think; more than anything, it teaches people to all think in the same way - it builds consensus and uniformity, and crushes originality and dynamism in the process.

As Mencken said (paraphrase): 'i know many men of great learning and intelligence, and one and all they say the same thing: that they learnt nothing worthwhile or important during their time at school.'

I would agree that education is key to success, but only if it is what you are suited to; education should not be confused with formal learning either because the latter is mostly a waste of time. It is more or less impossible to get a good education at school nowadays.

[tpols]

School teaches people to think for themselves? Don't be ridiculous. School does the opposite: it teaches people what to think, not how to think; more than anything, it teaches people to all think in the same way - it builds consensus and uniformity, and crushes originality and dynamism in the process.

As Mencken said (paraphrase): 'i know many men of great learning and intelligence, and one and all they say the same thing: that they learnt nothing worthwhile or important during their time at school.'

I would agree that education is key to success, but only if it is what you are suited to; education should not be confused with formal learning either because the latter is mostly a waste of time. It is more or less impossible to get a good education at school nowadays.
Why would you reply to the first sentence and ignore the next few true sentences?

[Dresta]

Why would you reply to the first sentence and ignore the next few true sentences?
There was no real need to go beyond the first sentence because it was rather central to his misunderstanding of how effective schooling is. The whole first paragraph, in fact, displays an obvious ignorance of how school actually works, and how people are taught.

[IamRAMBO24]

Props to Dresta for being one of the smartest poster in here. He definitely does his homework and knows his sh*t. :applause:

[IamRAMBO24]

Why would you reply to the first sentence and ignore the next few true sentences?

His premise was already retarded to begin with, so why would anyone need to address the supporting arguments when he's full of sh*t?

[KingBeasley08]

Lemme guess, you dropped out early and are flipping burgers now? Shoulda just stuck it out and gotten that engineering degree :pimp:

[IamRAMBO24]

Lemme guess, you dropped out early and are flipping burgers now? Shoulda just stuck it out and gotten that engineering degree :pimp:

Wrong again, I'm quite successful in my field of endeavor. In fact, revealing it will prob get me fired since I talk so much sh*t about the people who work there.

Because guess what, early on I figure out what it takes to be successful in the work force, and all of this is actually contradictory to what I learn in school. Education tells me to waste my time studying bullsh*t courses and confusing the f*ck out of me and c*ck blocking me from having a direct focus on a particular goal. Once I was able to study and read books on my own, I was able to focus my mind on a particular high paying job and educated myself on what I needed to do to attain that job.

Had I not done that, I would still be holding my d*ck trying to figure out what I needed to do in life had I solely relied on education as a means for my future.

P.S. This is also the reason why some of the most successful americans living today dropped out of school.

Sure there are successful people coming out of the educational system, but the amount of rejects compare to them fars outweigh any justification on why it's a productive means toward success. It is a money making machine run by corporate america, so it goes to reason the system wants to produce as much unskilled laborers working at low paying jobs as possible, and once on a full moon, allow a few students to be skilled laborers, of course, with a massive debt that goes along with it, y'know, this way they'll still be slaves to the system.

[tpols]

There was no real need to go beyond the first sentence because it was rather central to his misunderstanding of how effective schooling is. The whole first paragraph, in fact, displays an obvious ignorance of how school actually works, and how people are taught.
I dont even agree with the first sentence.. But the next few are pretty true

[STATUTORY]

Wrong again, I'm quite successful in my field of endeavor. In fact, revealing it will prob get me fired since I talk so much sh*t about the people who work there.

Because guess what, early on I figure out what it takes to be successful in the work force, and all of this is actually contradictory to what I learn in school. Education tells me to waste my time studying bullsh*t courses and confusing the f*ck out of me and c*ck blocking me from having a direct focus on a particular goal. Once I was able to study and read books on my own, I was able to focus my mind on a particular high paying job and educated myself on what I needed to do to attain that job.

Had I not done that, I would still be holding my d*ck trying to figure out what I needed to do in life had I solely relied on education as a means for my future.

P.S. This is also the reason why some of the most successful americans living today dropped out of school.

Sure there are successful people coming out of the educational system, but the amount of rejects compare to them fars outweigh any justification on why it's a productive means toward success. It is a money making machine run by corporate america, so it goes to reason the system wants to produce as much unskilled laborers working at low paying jobs as possible, and once on a full moon, allow a few students to be skilled laborers, of course, with a massive debt that goes along with it, y'know, this way they'll still be slaves to the system.

it's good that you developed a sense of direction and idea about what you wanted to pursue early, we don't really know that it's the optimal path you could have taken but for sake of argument assume it is. I think you are still the exception, most 10-18 year olds have very vague conception of the world. Hence a liberal and broad education is suitable rather than simply scuttling them to a trade/vocation program. That is a privilege of the first world, not a detriment.

In very poor countries, they indeed have what you describe. kids don't need to do all that fancy "book learning" they go straight to work and learn what they need to survive. but is that really the type of experience we want for children?

[IamRAMBO24]

In very poor countries, they indeed have what you describe. kids don't need to do all that fancy "book learning" they go straight to work and learn what they need to survive. but is that really the type of experience we want for children?

Kids are getting dumber. Look I would support the educational system if the end product means smarter kids and not a select few who fought tooth and nail for it. It is sad the main success we are seeing are from asian students who literally get their a*s beat if they don't focus on education. It shows you how antithetical the method of education is towards focus.

Focus is the be all end all mindset towards success. The fact education makes a student less focus goes to prove beyond a shadow of doubt it has failed miserably.

Also, how can education lay claim to reading and writing when there are so many students who went through the system and are still illiterate as f*ck and outright dumb?

[ace23]

Rambo trolling up a storm.

[IamRAMBO24]

Rambo trolling up a storm.

Not even.

Just trying to have a discussion. Just because you disagree with me (and can't come up with a counter rebuttal), does not mean you should be throwing out ad hocs as your only form of defense.

Challenge me. Research the topic and come up with a reason why education leads to success.

See it as 2 homies having a nice respectable discussion. Thanks.

[ace23]

Not even.

Just trying to have a discussion. Just because you disagree with me (and can't come up with a counter rebuttal), does not mean you should be throwing out ad hocs as your only form of defense.

Challenge me. Research the topic and come up with a reason why education leads to success.

See it as 2 homies having a nice respectable discussion. Thanks.
Ha. "ad hocs".

You're trolling.

Shut up.

[IamRAMBO24]

Ha. "ad hocs".

You're trolling.

Shut up.

Ha.

News flash dumbsh*t, I'm actually engaging in a discussion. I'm asking you to engage also and come up with a counter argument. Calling someone a troll is such a cop out.

[bladefd]

School teaches people to think for themselves? Don't be ridiculous. School does the opposite: it teaches people what to think, not how to think; more than anything, it teaches people to all think in the same way - it builds consensus and uniformity, and crushes originality and dynamism in the process.

As Mencken said (paraphrase): 'i know many men of great learning and intelligence, and one and all they say the same thing: that they learnt nothing worthwhile or important during their time at school.'

I would agree that education is key to success, but only if it is what you are suited to; education should not be confused with formal learning either because the latter is mostly a waste of time. It is more or less impossible to get a good education at school nowadays.

First of all, that is the point of K-12 education (teaching people how to think for themselves). In fact, that is central to the concept of education itself. No human can retain more than a small portion of what they learn after a couple years, regardless of the method used (excluding the few extremely rare people with photographic memories). What you end up retaining is the journey and general concepts that were instilled within you throughout that journey - essentially learning how to learn.

The only way to teach a human how to learn on their own is to let them go through a curriculum. In the most basic terms that I can lay out for you - a chimp will not learn on its own how to fish ants out of a hole with a stick. The chimp will need to learn how to fish ants by observing another chimp. Human behavior, if you know anything about it, is bit more complex but similar. Little children learn by watching and hearing other humans. In the same aspect, humans have to learn how to learn. They will eventually figure it out on their own through simple interactions with other humans, but K-12 education's goal is to speed it up.

Whether the goal currently succeeds or not globally/nationally is a whole different discussion. What the OP is stating is that K-12 education AS A WHOLE is completely useless. I ask one question: what do you recommend we switch K-12 education with? All I read in the opening post is how useless it is, how you don't need 12 years of education because you have to be taught everything too many times as it is and you will forget it no matter how many times you learn. What system do YOU recommend to replace K-12? Please don't say home-schooling.

Finally, I said "The main point of K-12 is to learn how to think for yourself, to develop common sense, learn how to deal with other human-beings, and gain basic knowledge."
You respond with a straw-man argument to distort what I said by going into a dialogue about how school does the opposite. Again, I never mentioned anything about whether that goal succeeds or not. That is a whole different discussion - I simply told you what the goal is of education. If you still were to ask me whether it succeeds, I'm going to say it does not for a large percentage of American students. Does that mean I feel as if ALL of K-12 education is worthless like the OP did? No sir.

There. The ball is in your court.

[tpols]

Ha.

News flash dumbsh*t, I'm actually engaging in a discussion. I'm asking you to engage also and come up with a counter argument. Calling someone a troll is such a cop out.
Nah.. best combo is education plus experience.. You need both today in U.S. Youre too black and white trying to stir controversy aka trollin

[IamRAMBO24]

Nah.. best combo is education plus experience.. You need both today in U.S. Youre too black and white trying to stir controversy aka trollin

Here is a 1 minute snippet of Chomsky. I would highly recommend listening to his 2 hour lecture on education.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEgCQyE9qE

Every great argument has a genius to back it up. So not only do you have to refute me, but you're going to have to refute this genius as well.

Rambo for the double win. :D

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

I agree with you Rambo and Dresta.

Now tell me ways I can be successful and how I can educate my friends to be successful

Specific orders.

Thanks.

[IamRAMBO24]

I agree with you Rambo and Dresta.

Now tell me ways I can be successful and how I can educate my friends to be successful

Specific orders.

Thanks.

1. Target. Have a set goal.

2. Strategy. What do you need to do to attain this goal?

3. Movement. Put it into action.

As is, education is doing everything in its power to deviate students from this simple mindset.

[IamRAMBO24]

You know you've got a strong argument when Jefferson Money is asking questions instead of providing answers.:rockon:

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

You know you've got a strong argument when Jefferson Money is asking questions instead of providing answers.:rockon:

Speaking of questions the old phrase goes something along the lines of wise people being the ones who ask the right questions.

Now on a matter of principle... how does one .... ask the right questions?

They need to have some sort of curiosity.

But what deters curiosity and what fosters curiosity?

Responsibilities and pragmatism from what I've seen happen to destroy the curiozade spirit in the philosopher and truth-seeker type (yourself and another ISH poster named Clifton). But what inspires it?

So do you think some are simply born lovers of it? Or can they be trained.



Furthermore in my 12 years of schooling I can pinpoint the exact times when people were motivated and learning to a T... because they weere so fukking rare lol.

Flashcard/Brain Quest/Mental Math games succeeded in sharpening people's math skills because they used the element of competition.

Physics Professors played snippets of Da Vinci Code and other in-movie fads at the time.. was he leveraging social value for the sake of sparking interest. He also brought in some big globe thing that projected static electricity.. (was this the art of hands on touch rearing its kinesthetic head/)

History Teacher inspired us by shouting down conventional truths and challenging them...
- Was MLK Jr... a hero?
- Was Hitler ... all that bad/
- Abe Lincoln's SKELETONS IN HIS CLOSET!
- FDR.... socialist scum?
- Britain and America. Did we REALLY "kick the redcoats azzes?"

etc... and had little mock trials. Was very cool. Critical thinking was heavily employed during that epoch of time.

And then there's that other type of teacher? The one who guides your thought process like this.... In order for you to undergo the steps.. to solve a solution. I can't do this skill but I am sure as fukk this would be exactly the kind of thing that would have excellent carryover into parenting.



Also Rambo, back in high school we had the privilege of doing Socratic Seminars and watching various documentaries. Now those.. Sparked. Discussion.


I leave you with this question.

If you could start a curriculum or a system for a collection of 4 year olds to undergo. HOw would you organize it?

[bladefd]

Here is a 1 minute snippet of Chomsky. I would highly recommend listening to his 2 hour lecture on education.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEgCQyE9qE

Every great argument has a genius to back it up. So not only do you have to refute me, but you're going to have to refute this genius as well.

Rambo for the double win. :D

I was not going to respond to that post directly, but you have distorted the great Chomsky to make room for your own ignorance.

Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdNAUJWJN08

The first purpose of education to Chomsky that he talks about is (paraphrased).. teach students how to learn on their own, use imagination, act freely, cooperate with others. Those are Noam Chomsky's words that he believes the purpose of education are. Does that sound familiar? YES! That is what I said what the point of education is! To that, you said my premise was retarded. That is a HUGE part of Chomsky's own definition of what education ought to be.

I have watched lectures by Chomsky and documentaries by him. Chomsky does not say that K-12 education is completely useless like you did. He would never say that education system is worthless, but he would say that it is broke for large number of people (he would not go into hyperbole of how it is broke for every student) and give ways that he would improve it. You've completely distorted Chomsky and created a straw-man argument. Well done. :applause:

[DonDadda59]

You can argue the merits of 'higher education' (except in cases of very specific and specialized work, ie, neurosurgery) but I think people need the basic education taught in grade school.

[shlver]

As many have pointed out, the purpose of compulsory education is obvious. It is needed because we are not born with knowledge and we need basic skills to function in society ie socialization, writing, arithmetic, algebra etc. Even after the most basic skills are learned, education still serves as exposure to different subjects so the student can learn how to think and discover his or her inclinations.
The idea of apprenticeships only work for occupations that don't require deeper understanding of subject matter. This rules out most of the specialized professions in the stem fields. It is absolutely unfeasible for a professional to do his of her duties and try to do the job that undergrad professors and high school teachers do. It is nonsense to say you can be a doctor from 6 years of training from the age of 13, but it's another rambo thread so I'm not surprised.

[dr.hee]

I was not going to respond to that post directly, but you have distorted the great Chomsky to make room for your own ignorance.

Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdNAUJWJN08

The first purpose of education to Chomsky that he talks about is (paraphrased).. teach students how to learn on their own, use imagination, act freely, cooperate with others. Those are Noam Chomsky's words that he believes the purpose of education are. Does that sound familiar? YES! That is what I said what the point of education is! To that, you said my premise was retarded. That is a HUGE part of Chomsky's own definition of what education ought to be.

I have watched lectures by Chomsky and documentaries by him. Chomsky does not say that K-12 education is completely useless like you did. He would never say that education system is worthless, but he would say that it is broke for large number of people (he would not go into hyperbole of how it is broke for every student) and give ways that he would improve it. You've completely distorted Chomsky and created a straw-man argument. Well done. :applause:

Repped.

[IamRAMBO24]

The idea of apprenticeships only work for occupations that don't require deeper understanding of subject matter.

Rote memorization is a "deeper" understanding of the subject matter? Elaborate.

[IamRAMBO24]

I was not going to respond to that post directly, but you have distorted the great Chomsky to make room for your own ignorance.

Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdNAUJWJN08

The first purpose of education to Chomsky that he talks about is (paraphrased).. teach students how to learn on their own, use imagination, act freely, cooperate with others. Those are Noam Chomsky's words that he believes the purpose of education are. Does that sound familiar? YES! That is what I said what the point of education is! To that, you said my premise was retarded. That is a HUGE part of Chomsky's own definition of what education ought to be.

I have watched lectures by Chomsky and documentaries by him. Chomsky does not say that K-12 education is completely useless like you did. He would never say that education system is worthless, but he would say that it is broke for large number of people (he would not go into hyperbole of how it is broke for every student) and give ways that he would improve it. You've completely distorted Chomsky and created a straw-man argument. Well done. :applause:

I really want to refrain from replying so much since Dresta now owns this thread.

Seriously though, your argument is incredibly flawed.

[shlver]

Rote memorization is a "deeper" understanding of the subject matter? Elaborate.
Rote memorization is a precursor to deeper understanding of subject matter. for example, I had to memorize the chemical properties of amino acids to understand the chemical basis of various disease states.

[IamRAMBO24]

I'll bite.

1. You completely misinterpreted his lecture. He was actually attacking education for not encouraging creativity and intelligence. He went as far as calling the system guilty of nothing more than teaching stupidity.

2. When he raised those points, he wasn't actually agreeing with you; in fact, he was contradicting your premise of "education building the minds of youths" by bringing up the concept of indoctrination.

Learn to listen and think on your own, oh yea, that's right, you don't know how to since you were never taught how through the educational system.

[IamRAMBO24]

Rote memorization is a precursor to deeper understanding of subject matter. for example, I had to memorize the chemical properties of amino acids to understand the chemical basis of various disease states.

The understanding part doesn't come from rote memorization. Don't confuse the two.

[shlver]

The understanding part doesn't come from rote memorization. Don't confuse the two.
Of course it doesnt. I said it was a precursor, not the precursor. comprehend the sentence, dont distort it

[IamRAMBO24]

Of course it doesnt. I said it was a precursor, not the precursor. comprehend the sentence, dont distort it

Well education is entirely centered around rote memorization, so break down what exactly leads to understanding through this process. Thanks.

[shlver]

Well education is entirely centered around rote memorization, so break down what exactly leads to understanding through this process. Thanks.
For example, we know the chemical basis of sicklecell is a single amino acid mutation from valine to glutamic acid. By memorization of the protonation state at physiological ph of glutamic acid, and it chemical properties, we can examine the chemical interaction between that residue and blood plasma. this is how we do research in the lab, we use memorized chemical properties for mutation of residues to obtain desirable results(ie different colors of flourescence proteins), or else we would be randomly mutating any amino acid.
This might just go over your head, but you need memorization and it is an essential tool for learning and synthesizing.

[IamRAMBO24]

For example, we know the chemical basis of sicklecell is a single amino acid mutation from valine to glutamic acid. By memorization of the protonation state at physiological ph of glutamic acid, and it chemical properties, we can examine the chemical interaction between that residue and blood plasma. this is how we do research in the lab, we use memorized chemical properties for mutation of residues to obtain desirable results(ie different colors of flourescence proteins), or else we would be randomly mutating any amino acid.
This might just go over your head, but you need memorization and it is an essential tool for learning and synthesizing.

Horrible example. Of course that process will lead to an understanding of the processes of chemistry, but really, rote memorization in and of itself is a failure of true learning.

For example, many americans were taught when the US constitution was signed and where it was signed. How many actually know what was written in it? How many know what lead to the enlightenment movement?

Rote memorization does have its benefits in some areas such as basic arithmetic and chemistry like you cited, but when it comes to the comprehension of important matters such as history, merely memorizing dates and characters just aint cutting it.

It is sad most americans only think about fireworks when asked about what the constitution stands for.

[dr.hee]

For example, we know the chemical basis of sicklecell is a single amino acid mutation from valine to glutamic acid. By memorization of the protonation state at physiological ph of glutamic acid, and it chemical properties, we can examine the chemical interaction between that residue and blood plasma. this is how we do research in the lab, we use memorized chemical properties for mutation of residues to obtain desirable results(ie different colors of flourescence proteins), or else we would be randomly mutating any amino acid.
This might just go over your head, but you need memorization and it is an essential tool for learning and synthesizing.

Stop it, that's too much for Rambo :oldlol:

The same applies to topics like anatomy. It's more efficient to derive functional properties from basic facts you've learned before than simply memorizing them, no doubt...but the foundation is laid by simply repeating the basics over and over again. You won't learn the names for some stupid tiny ass spots on your cranial bones by applying some vague notion of "critical thought".

Anyway...what's your degree?

[niko]

I don't get Rambo's shtick. Is he just strange and this is a way to interact with strangers and prove he's intelligent? (There is not job that would accept this rambling crap and give it props.) Or is it some Kaufmanesque thing where he thinks he's getting everyone flustered and or entertained and it amuses him?

Either way it's kind of stupid and probably a better argument for how bad the US education system is than anything he's posted.

[IamRAMBO24]

Let's take Science for example. This is the highest thought of education. It is the methodology that leads to truth. But how many actually understand how the process works?

They are told you are to observe, formulate a theory, test it through experimentation, and draw a conclusion.

They don't understand the idols of Bacon; they are not fully aware it is the methodology of John Stuart Mill (not Newton or Einstein), and they sure as hell don't know why this methodology leads to truth other than what they are told.

[shlver]

Horrible example. Of course that process will lead to an understanding of the processes of chemistry, but really, rote memorization in and of itself is a failure of true learning.

For example, many americans were taught when the US constitution was signed and where it was signed. How many actually know what was written in it? How many know what lead to the enlightenment movement?

Rote memorization does have its benefits in some areas such as basic arithmetic and chemistry like you cited, but when it comes to the comprehension of important matters such as history, merely memorizing dates and characters just aint cutting it.

It is sad most americans only think about fireworks when asked about what the constitution stands for.
In fact, I've only memorized for exams and true recollection has only come from application and synthesis. Once again memorization is a precursor. If that is all the student is doing for his or her college courses, then that is a failure on the students part. We live in an age of information that can be accessed immediately with a little curiosity. Even you can stop butchering amd misusing scientific theories if you put in a little effort.
I also dont understand the misconception that college is all rote memorization. Most of my upper division courses had a fair amount of synthesis, we had to design a chemically viable organism for my metabolic regulation course and would have been impossible without rote memorization of arrow pushing and chemical properties(which is fairly intuitive anyways) nevertheless, without the memorizatio of lower diviosn courses, referencing and relearning would have been difficult,

[Bandito]

I already agreed certain aspects of memorization is essential; what I am truly disagreeing is the lack of understanding in education in important subject matters like history and the methodology of Science.
"Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It."


If we didn't know the history of 1000 year past we would just continue to see black people as property for example or continue to believe hurricanes are gods etc...


I am not going to give my thoughts on the topic because I can see everybody's point including OP's on the matter.

I am in the military where I work as a respiratory therapist as Air national Guard. In order to learn the job I had to take some classroom classes and apprenticeships too. SO I have experience in both way of learning, and I think both are the best way to learn.

I don't think college should make you take so many classes that are useless in your field, but I do think they should give it for the first 12 years of school because kids need to know about everything they can use in daily life, including history and philosophy.

[IamRAMBO24]

In fact, I've only memorized for exams and true recollection has only come from application and synthesis. Once again memorization is a precursor. If that is all the student is doing for his or her college courses, then that is a failure on the students part. We live in an age of information that can be accessed immediately with a little curiosity. Even you can stop butchering amd misusing scientific theories if you put in a little effort.
I also dont understand the misconception that college is all rote memorization. Most of my upper division courses had a fair amount of synthesis, we had to design a chemically viable organism for my metabolic regulation course and would have been impossible without rote memorization of arrow pushing(which is fairly intuitive anyways) nevertheless, without the memorizatio of lower diviosn courses, referencing and relearning would have been difficult,

Trust me, there is more to knowledge than learning chemical processes. I just like how you center your entire argument around this (which is hard to argue I admit), but the truth of the matter is having a proper understanding of history, math, and science (other than merely memorizing dates, famous people, and events, etc.) will make a student more well rounded in conceptual thinking.

You can't argue this. There is so much meaning behind these ideas the students are missing because their learning has been butchered to merely memorization.

[IamRAMBO24]

For example, we know the chemical basis of sicklecell is a single amino acid mutation from valine to glutamic acid. By memorization of the protonation state at physiological ph of glutamic acid, and it chemical properties, we can examine the chemical interaction between that residue and blood plasma. this is how we do research in the lab, we use memorized chemical properties for mutation of residues to obtain desirable results(ie different colors of flourescence proteins), or else we would be randomly mutating any amino acid.
This might just go over your head, but you need memorization and it is an essential tool for learning and synthesizing.

Even in chemistry, do you even understand the thinking behind the great alchemists?

Merely memorizing the processes just aint cutting it homeboy.

[dr.hee]

Even in chemistry, do you even understand the thinking behind the great alchemists?

Merely memorizing the processes just aint cutting it homeboy.

A trained modern chemist is beyond everything some medieval peasants were cooking up in their basement :oldlol:

[IamRAMBO24]

A trained modern chemist is beyond everything some medieval peasants were cooking up in their basement :oldlol:

Really?

Holy sh*t you know absolutely nothing about the great alchemists.

[nathanjizzle]

whos going to teach these kids history?

[dr.hee]

Really?

Holy sh*t you know absolutely nothing about the great alchemists.

Yes, really. And you know it. What do you get out of posting all this nonsense? Is your sense of self-worth really that low that if someone is paying attention to the stuff you're saying, the joke's on him? That's what you're thinking of yourself? Pretty sad actually.

[IamRAMBO24]

Yes, really. And you know it. What do you get out of posting all this nonsense? Is your sense of self-worth really that low that if someone is paying attention to the stuff you're saying, the joke's on him? That's what you're thinking of yourself? Pretty sad actually.

Hey if Noam Chomsky agrees with me and idiots like nathanjizzle agrees with you, I would say I'm in good company.:rockon:

[shlver]

Trust me, there is more to knowledge than learning chemical processes. I just like how you center your entire argument around this (which is hard to argue I admit), but the truth of the matter is having a proper understanding of history, math, and science (other than merely memorizing dates, famous people, and events, etc.) will make a student more well rounded in conceptual thinking.

You can't argue this. There is so much meaning behind these ideas the students are missing because their learning has been butchered to merely memorization.
I like how you set the goalposts in requesting my example and then accuse me of centering my entire argument on that example.

[shlver]

Stop it, that's too much for Rambo :oldlol:

The same applies to topics like anatomy. It's more efficient to derive functional properties from basic facts you've learned before than simply memorizing them, no doubt...but the foundation is laid by simply repeating the basics over and over again. You won't learn the names for some stupid tiny ass spots on your cranial bones by applying some vague notion of "critical thought".

Anyway...what's your degree?
I have a bs in biochemistry and molecular biology.

The debate has turned incredibly off topic. I should have not responded to rambo's cherry picking of my original comment.

[travelingman]

Hey if Noam Chomsky agrees with me and idiots like nathanjizzle agrees with you, I would say I'm in good company.:rockon:

Appeal to authority.

[travelingman]

It is sad most americans only think about fireworks when asked about what the constitution stands for.

I would think that more people relate the Declaration of Independence to fireworks than the Constitution, but don't even get me started about the total misunderstanding of the fourth of July and its connection to the Declaration of Independence that has become standard thinking for the average uneducated American.

[Dresta]

First of all, that is the point of K-12 education (teaching people how to think for themselves). In fact, that is central to the concept of education itself. No human can retain more than a small portion of what they learn after a couple years, regardless of the method used (excluding the few extremely rare people with photographic memories). What you end up retaining is the journey and general concepts that were instilled within you throughout that journey - essentially learning how to learn.

The only way to teach a human how to learn on their own is to let them go through a curriculum. In the most basic terms that I can lay out for you - a chimp will not learn on its own how to fish ants out of a hole with a stick. The chimp will need to learn how to fish ants by observing another chimp. Human behavior, if you know anything about it, is bit more complex but similar. Little children learn by watching and hearing other humans. In the same aspect, humans have to learn how to learn. They will eventually figure it out on their own through simple interactions with other humans, but K-12 education's goal is to speed it up.

Whether the goal currently succeeds or not globally/nationally is a whole different discussion. What the OP is stating is that K-12 education AS A WHOLE is completely useless. I ask one question: what do you recommend we switch K-12 education with? All I read in the opening post is how useless it is, how you don't need 12 years of education because you have to be taught everything too many times as it is and you will forget it no matter how many times you learn. What system do YOU recommend to replace K-12? Please don't say home-schooling.

Finally, I said "The main point of K-12 is to learn how to think for yourself, to develop common sense, learn how to deal with other human-beings, and gain basic knowledge."
You respond with a straw-man argument to distort what I said by going into a dialogue about how school does the opposite. Again, I never mentioned anything about whether that goal succeeds or not. That is a whole different discussion - I simply told you what the goal is of education. If you still were to ask me whether it succeeds, I'm going to say it does not for a large percentage of American students. Does that mean I feel as if ALL of K-12 education is worthless like the OP did? No sir.

There. The ball is in your court.
A straw man? You said 'the main point of k-12 is to learn how to think for yourself' to which i replied that the main point is far more to teach people how to all think the same, and in a uniform manner (as do all heavily standardized, centrally planned forms of education). Moreover, this kind of education works to suppress originality and creative intelligence, because its focus lies in bringing up the bottom rather than nurturing the top.

I don't know why you are bringing up IamRambo's argument, because i did not make it, and my point was aimed solely at your facile assertion that formal education in its current form encourages people to think independently, which it does not. It is completely irrelevant to what i was saying whether all k-12 education is useless, nor do i really care, because a bit of hyperbole does not invalidate an argument that is clearly correct. All that does matter is that the way we are educating people is not making them more intelligent, it is not teaching them to examine concepts and problems critically, and is producing an increasingly stagnant society completely devoid of new ideas. Furthermore, this failed form of education has been propped up by the purporting of a grand delusion that everybody benefits from sitting in a classroom until the age of 18 and even further. All this has done is standardized and diluted the education system to the point where those who should be benefiting from a rigorous education aren't, because universities are dumbing down syllabuses to accommodate the masses, to bring in more money, and to churn out degrees (and 'more qualified' individuals) at an absurd rate. As a consequence, Universities have become filled with people lacking a real passion for learning, and the general atmosphere and standard of education has deteriorated.

I think it is clear that a certain amount of education to be provided to everyone is beneficial to society, but there is little evidence of its import beyond a primary level (i.e. reading, writing and arithmetic, maybe a bit of national history etc.). Once you go beyond this point, formal education becomes a waste of time for those of limited mental capacity, and downright counterproductive for those who are more gifted and who should be benefiting from a well-rounded education. The aim is always to bring up the bottom to a certain level, often by teaching things in the most simplistic and standardized manner available (cheap pedagogical tricks), and this will dissuade a bright student from appreciating the value of education, while also propping up box tickers of no real intelligence. The amount of times employers have complained to me about the uselessness of high-end university graduates is remarkable, and this is because of this trend to disillusion the intelligent, original and creative, and to encourage the static human minds who are learned only in following instructions.

As for what i would replace it with: well, i see no need to postulate a new system simply to justify my assertion that the current one is shit (i really cba writing much more). But since you asked, i believe it is essential to have a privately run, competitive education system, where institutions can maintain a strong amount of autonomy to counter the pernicious effects of standardization. This will allow different methods to be tried, and means many institutions would provide teachers with a higher degree of flexibility, which in turn would attract higher quality individuals into the profession of teaching, because their jobs would not be so limited by standard practices and norms (at the moment, the saying goes 'those who can't learn, teach'). The need to make education uniform and standardized - with teachers following strict guidelines, and all children taught in the same way - is a completely flawed concept, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes education useful (conflict of ideas, dialectic etc). Passing memory based tests that are ineffective at showing anything useful is of little value to anyone. I think children should be streamed no later than 14, with those who have aptitude remaining in the classroom to pursue theoretical and abstract matters, while those that don't move into a more practical form of learning, where they will be trained to work in some kind of skilled trade. And yes, home schooling should of course be an option, because if done correctly, it is going to produce a far better educated individual than any public schooling system.

Your first two paragraphs seem completely irrelevant to me (incoherent and nonsensical as well), and have nothing to do with the state of the education system. I don't think anyone was saying that education and learning are unimportant, so it is clearly you that is creating a straw man.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

To add to the theoretical free market school scenario; I"d also like a stronger emphasis on leadership, salesmanship, social skills, creative brainstorming, critical thinking, oratory, and ethics done at a young age to replace garbage like Family and Consumer Science.

Oh and start slapping kids on the wrists with rulers for poor grammar.


Also the literature needs to stick with more of the classics and less of the Salingers imo.

[nathanjizzle]

Hey if Noam Chomsky agrees with me and idiots like nathanjizzle agrees with you, I would say I'm in good company.:rockon:

you agree with the conspiracy community :roll: :facepalm

[IamRAMBO24]

you agree with the conspiracy community :roll: :facepalm

Noam Chomsky > you.

As is, the people disagreeing with me have you as their groupie. So what does that say about their argument? You are quite possibly the dumbest poster on here, even one of the best (Jefferson Money) can't outright refute the premise.

[bladefd]

I'll bite.

1. You completely misinterpreted his lecture. He was actually attacking education for not encouraging creativity and intelligence. He went as far as calling the system guilty of nothing more than teaching stupidity.

2. When he raised those points, he wasn't actually agreeing with you; in fact, he was contradicting your premise of "education building the minds of youths" by bringing up the concept of indoctrination.

Learn to listen and think on your own, oh yea, that's right, you don't know how to since you were never taught how through the educational system.

Boy do you have comprehension issues. You're completely clueless with zero credibility. Welcome to my ignore list, troll.

Hey guys, stop responding to IamRambo. He has no idea what he is talking about. This is the same guy that tried to argue that science is worthless just recently. Check out his reputation. He is nothing more than a troll or a kid misled.

[IamRAMBO24]

Boy do you have comprehension issues. You're completely clueless with zero credibility. Welcome to my ignore list, troll.

Haha get mad.

Look at this idiot getting all mad because he misinterpreted Chomsky and really thought he was encouraging the system, and I quote him, " He would never say that education system is worthless."

Calling it stupid is pretty saying it's worthless dumbsh*t.

Anyways folks, see the evidence for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUwBc-GvFFM

[bladefd]

A straw man? You said 'the main point of k-12 is to learn how to think for yourself' to which i replied that the main point is far more to teach people how to all think the same, and in a uniform manner (as do all heavily standardized, centrally planned forms of education). Moreover, this kind of education works to suppress originality and creative intelligence, because its focus lies in bringing up the bottom rather than nurturing the top.

..next 2 paragraphs

Yes, that is the point of k-12 education. As I said multiple times, current education methods do not work successfully for large number of students at least in America due to many teachers not knowing how to teach (not all) and students not working to their full abilities (not all) whether it is intentionally or being incapable of it. Unfortunately, you cannot create an individualized system that differs for every single student when there are 50million students. The only thing you can REALISTICALLY do is create a standardized system. Do you know how many of the 50 million individuals differ in their learning styles? Ideally, you want a system that meets the needs of ALL students, but realistically it will never meet the needs of ALL students. The best you can do is maximize a standardized system to try to reach as MANY students as you can.

It is a straw man argument because you're pointing out something to try to invalidate my points that IM NOT EVEN ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST! You are arguing whether it works or not. I'm not even debating that point - in fact, I agree that the K-12 education system is BROKE for a LARGE number of Americans. I'm simply telling you what the purpose is of K-12 education. The two arguments are apples to oranges.


As for what i would replace it with: well, i see no need to postulate a new system simply to justify my assertion that the current one is shit (i really cba writing much more). But since you asked, i believe it is essential to have a privately run, competitive education system, where institutions can maintain a strong amount of autonomy to counter the pernicious effects of standardization. This will allow different methods to be tried, and means many institutions would provide teachers with a higher degree of flexibility, which in turn would attract higher quality individuals into the profession of teaching, because their jobs would not be so limited by standard practices and norms (at the moment, the saying goes 'those who can't learn, teach').

There already are private schools that follow their own curriculum. If somebody can afford it, they can go that path. If somebody can afford home-schooling with decent teachers, they can also go that path. Nobody is stopping that. The vast majority of people can't though. The average lower-class and middle-class can NOT afford private schools/homeschooling.

Also, you said the current system is shit. If you don't have a better system to replace it with, what the hell are you arguing? You sound like one of those people "society is shit, people are shit, education is shit, everything is shit" then somebody asks them what should be done about it. They respond with "I don't know. All I know is everything is shit SHIT SHIT."


Your first two paragraphs seem completely irrelevant to me (incoherent and nonsensical as well), and have nothing to do with the state of the education system. I don't think anyone was saying that education and learning are unimportant, so it is clearly you that is creating a straw man.

Read the OP's posts. My first post was on page 6 and was response to the overall general argument posted by OP. The OP kept harping on how K-12 education are useless and worthless. I argued why there is a need for K-12 education and what the goal is of K-12 education. Yes, it is broke in USA, but it doesn't mean it is ALL useless/worthless. Does that make sense?

[Swaggin916]

If only school encouraged this. Unfortunately, what it really does, is instill rules and formulae, without any fundamental understanding of what lies behind them - simple exam preparation, geared to get as many as possible over a below mediocre standard. In English, the shortest books make the syllabus (Gatsby, Mice and Men, Huck Finn etc.), and are examined in a dry and uninteresting way, focusing far more on details than general ideas. In Maths and the Sciences methods are taught without explaining why, and they are taught from dumbed down, lowest common denominator textbooks, that are completely uninspiring.

It was only once i started reading books myself, after i'd finished school, that i began to find the stuff interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if public education deterred more intelligent people from learning than it encouraged. We have more and more people taking degrees, yet it seems we have less people with a real passion for knowledge and understanding. Universities are just full of people who simply do not belong there. Education at the moment is generally working to press down the top and drag up the bottom. It helps those who don't really benefit from formal education, while depressing those who have the most to gain and the most to give society.

I am not sure I agree with that. Those who are really active in public school are noticed and encouraged and pointed towards/given opportunities to be a part of things that will further their education. There just aren't that many kids who are motivated enough... and then there are all the hormones and distractions to deal with.

[D.J.]

True education is through life experience. Not that school isn't important, but can/do your teachers teach you: How to write a check? Buy a car? Manage finances? Succeed with the opposite sex? Get a job?

My teachers didn't teach me how to do any of that. All those were taught to me by a combination of my parents and trial and error.

[I<3NBA]

as i see it, a kid only needs to learn to read, write, and do math. whatever else he needs to learn can be learned on his own.

i am more in support of apprenticeship. a lot of time is wasted on kids trying to learn things they will never use when they can just go and learn directly whatever they want to do in life. practice > theory

[Dresta]

I am not sure I agree with that. Those who are really active in public school are noticed and encouraged and pointed towards/given opportunities to be a part of things that will further their education. There just aren't that many kids who are motivated enough... and then there are all the hormones and distractions to deal with.
There aren't any kids motivated enough because it is boring as hell. I was placed in an advanced mathematics class in school, and it consisted of little more than doing slightly more complex problems, from a slightly more advanced textbook - pretty much just doing the things that would be done in a year or two. No effort at teaching the fundamentals is made; the sole emphasis is placed on learning how to, and solving problems. Nobody is introduced to Euclid (a book actually capable of inspiring interest in a young mind), the philosophical justifications for mathematics and its relation to logic are ignored, and all is learned (as with the sciences) in an unsystematic and piecemeal way, which puts nothing in its place and does little to aid proper understanding. Until University at least (often not even then) these subjects are taught in a superficial and stupid manner. And it isn't that teaching these things properly is beyond the comprehension of teenagers, because teenagers have been learning these things for hundreds of years; it is only recently that we have dumbed things down to the extent that just about anybody can succeed in school if they put a bit of work in. As i said before, it is equalizing the field: stagnating the intelligence of those at the top, and improperly educating the rest.

It is largely a waste of time imo. Just think how many more people are being educated now, and for far longer than they ever were before. In the space of a generation (in UK) the amount attending University has risen from around 5% to around 50% - if this was at all effective then one would expect to see some evidence of it. Yet, are people more intelligent than they used to be? Hell no, i'm surprised on a daily basis by the gross stupidity of most people around my age. If anything, it only makes people more conceited, and less aware of their own ignorance and stupidity (along with an arrogant sense of entitlement). Is all this mass education making us wealthier or increasing our standard of living? Another clear no: not long ago most people who got a job straight out of school could get a place to live, get married, and start a family. Now we have a nation of twenty-somethings, living at home with their parents, after they've finished University. Our economies are based on mindless consumer spending and living beyond our means, and neither the US or UK produce much anyone wants to buy. Coinciding with this, i see little evidence that education is improving people's lives in a psychic way: the things education should encourage (reading, writing, appreciation of art and music, and the love of knowledge) are all on a steep decline. Very few young people read anything worth reading, and even less listen to any music worth listening to, or that takes any skill to compose. Despite the huge upsurge in education, the youth of today are more anti-intellectual than they've ever been, and that clearly shows that education, as currently construed, has been a complete failure.

People are deemed incapable of choosing what substances they consume, what food they should eat and how much, the loans they should take, the pornography they watch etc. Every day the impetus to nanny and treat the adult population like children grows, as the same people who think education is all powerful, increase their need to correct because people still aren't making the 'right' decisions. And yet still more faith is endlessly placed in this mystical force of education. It is a sham and a racket, which allows pseudo-intellectuals and other mediocrities to collect a pay-packet and have a comfortable life, while doing nothing of value or worth. The youth are being scammed so that their elders can live more comfortably.

[ace23]

Dresta writing books.

[Dresta]

Yes, that is the point of k-12 education. As I said multiple times, current education methods do not work successfully for large number of students at least in America due to many teachers not knowing how to teach (not all) and students not working to their full abilities (not all) whether it is intentionally or being incapable of it. Unfortunately, you cannot create an individualized system that differs for every single student when there are 50million students. The only thing you can REALISTICALLY do is create a standardized system. Do you know how many of the 50 million individuals differ in their learning styles? Ideally, you want a system that meets the needs of ALL students, but realistically it will never meet the needs of ALL students. The best you can do is maximize a standardized system to try to reach as MANY students as you can.

It is a straw man argument because you're pointing out something to try to invalidate my points that IM NOT EVEN ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST! You are arguing whether it works or not. I'm not even debating that point - in fact, I agree that the K-12 education system is BROKE for a LARGE number of Americans. I'm simply telling you what the purpose is of K-12 education. The two arguments are apples to oranges.
See, this is where we differ. I think if you are going to standardize the educating of the masses, then what is needed is to separate the gifted from the rest, to ensure that at least they receive a decent education. It is impossible to educate everyone well up to the age of 18 because there will never be enough good teachers, and the system will be too rigid due to standardization. Moreover, you simply don't need to educate the vast majority of people to the age of 18; this is a fallacy that seems to have been accepted as conventional wisdom despite there being no evidence at all in its favour.



There already are private schools that follow their own curriculum. If somebody can afford it, they can go that path. If somebody can afford home-schooling with decent teachers, they can also go that path. Nobody is stopping that. The vast majority of people can't though. The average lower-class and middle-class can NOT afford private schools/homeschooling.


I can't say how it is in the US because i don't know the system well enough, but i imagine its probably similar to UK (correct me if i'm wrong). Private schools in the UK (at least most of them) still do not provide good educations because their primary motivation is exam preparation. Getting the highest scores in exams is almost the sole determinant of a schools reputation, so everything is based around getting students best prepared to succeed at these. The exams are centrally administered and therefore the curriculum is centrally determined by the state, not by the school. People don't necessarily get higher grades in private schools because they are taught better, but because they are spoon-fed more, and often to the point where it becomes impossible to fail.

Anyway, i propose a voucher system, with schools setting their own entry criteria. This would mean that if parents cannot afford to pay, then the state will pay, provided the student is accepted to the school based on academic success. You would have both cheaper and more standardized schools, as well as more expensive schools of a higher academic standard, and with better modes of teaching. This would help separate promising students from disruptive dunderheads, and allow each to flourish in their own way (the former in the classroom, the latter somewhere else after 14).

[Andrei89]

Well,

OP, you are one of the most retarded posters on ISH. So I am guessing you did not complete first grade to 12th.

Congratz.

[bladefd]

See, this is where we differ. I think if you are going to standardize the educating of the masses, then what is needed is to separate the gifted from the rest, to ensure that at least they receive a decent education. It is impossible to educate everyone well up to the age of 18 because there will never be enough good teachers, and the system will be too rigid due to standardization. Moreover, you simply don't need to educate the vast majority of people to the age of 18; this is a fallacy that seems to have been accepted as conventional wisdom despite there being no evidence at all in its favour.

Finding who is gifted and who isn't is extremely difficult. Speaking from personal experience, I used to stutter when I was younger and had a difficult time speaking (I did not learn English till 8 since I was born in India and English I learned later). Somebody in the US school when I moved here at 8yrs old felt I needed special education on the side because they felt I needed extra help. Until 7th grade, I was attending that sort of class where one of the things I had to do was differentiate between different animals and colors and letters/numbers, etc. One of my regular teachers found out and she went straight to the principal, and they had me removed from that class right away.

This is just one example of how difficult it is to tell who needs special help and who is gifted. Things like stuttering and how a person speaks or takes exams could be easily misleading. IQ tests don't work properly. What do you use to differentiated between gifted and not gifted? As an introvert, I can tell you right now that people have a difficult time understanding introverted people. What you say is easier said than done in practice.


Getting the highest scores in exams is almost the sole determinant of a schools reputation, so everything is based around getting students best prepared to succeed at these. The exams are centrally administered and therefore the curriculum is centrally determined by the state, not by the school. People don't necessarily get higher grades in private schools because they are taught better, but because they are spoon-fed more, and often to the point where it becomes impossible to fail.

Anyway, i propose a voucher system, with schools setting their own entry criteria. This would mean that if parents cannot afford to pay, then the state will pay, provided the student is accepted to the school based on academic success. This would help separate promising students from disruptive dunderheads, and allow each to flourish in their own way (the former in the classroom, the latter somewhere else after 14).

You're right that exam scores are big in determining how successful a school is. I don't think private school have to publicly release their exam scores, but they're used internally. The issue is though: what else do you use to determine how successful a whole school system is? The exam outcome sum of the average student is the simplest way to do it for 10,000+ students.

There are private entities in USA called "Governor's schools", etc that students could be chosen to attend depending on your grades & if you choose to. I think each highschool gets to choose only a few students to attend those schools so they interview each of the candidates to see who is the sharpest. The state pays for that school along with funds from large private companies. Each state has a few of these but it is only for the most gifted that you can tell right away that there is something special about them (introverts may be exempt).

Separating average from above average students is very difficult. Grades are the simplest way to do it unless if you have the time, money & resources to closely analyze and interview every single individual that attends (which nobody does). Again, you propose an ideal system but it is unrealistic.

[niko]

That's nice, if you are gifted you get a nice education, if not "**** you" and you become one of the uneducated masses. And since this will be done at an early age, **** you immigrant (how can you be in the high end of any testing as you need to learn an additional language and **** you poor person because more than likely if you are poor and underprivleged there sure as hell is a better chance you aren't getting that early education and stimulus.

I'm not seeing how this is better.

[ace23]

That's nice, if you are gifted you get a nice education, if not "**** you" and you become one of the uneducated masses. And since this will be done at an early age, **** you immigrant (how can you be in the high end of any testing as you need to learn an additional language and **** you poor person because more than likely if you are poor and underprivleged there sure as hell is a better chance you aren't getting that early education and stimulus.

I'm not seeing how this is better.
What are you talking about bro?

[niko]

What are you talking about bro?
Dresta said to educate the gifted.

See, this is where we differ. I think if you are going to standardize the educating of the masses, then what is needed is to separate the gifted from the rest, to ensure that at least they receive a decent education. It is impossible to educate everyone well up to the age of 18 because there will never be enough good teachers, and the system will be too rigid due to standardization. Moreover, you simply don't need to educate the vast majority of people to the age of 18; this is a fallacy that seems to have been accepted as conventional wisdom despite there being no evidence at all in its favour.

[outbreak]

Dresta said to educate the gifted.

See, this is where we differ. I think if you are going to standardize the educating of the masses, then what is needed is to separate the gifted from the rest, to ensure that at least they receive a decent education. It is impossible to educate everyone well up to the age of 18 because there will never be enough good teachers, and the system will be too rigid due to standardization. Moreover, you simply don't need to educate the vast majority of people to the age of 18; this is a fallacy that seems to have been accepted as conventional wisdom despite there being no evidence at all in its favour.

Personally I think they should go back to how things were done in the past here in Australia, at something like 14-15 you had the option to go to a trade school instead of continue with regular schooling that teaches a variety of basics to lead into trades like carpentry, building, plumbing, electrician and what not rather than kids having to sit through useless subjects to them until they turn 18 if they don't want to be looked at as a drop out. Most kids past the age of around 16 roughly know what kinds of jobs they will be doing in life, if you aren't going to put in effort and struggle with intelectual subjects there should be a pathway for kids to go do more hands on trade school

[Dresta]

That's nice, if you are gifted you get a nice education, if not "**** you" and you become one of the uneducated masses. And since this will be done at an early age, **** you immigrant (how can you be in the high end of any testing as you need to learn an additional language and **** you poor person because more than likely if you are poor and underprivleged there sure as hell is a better chance you aren't getting that early education and stimulus.

I'm not seeing how this is better.
That's not really what i'm saying. I already said that the utmost effort should be made to educate people to a primary level, which means everyone should have attained the ability to read, write and solve basic arithmetic problems. Education much beyond this point doesn't do a lot of people any good, nor does it benefit society. And it is beyond obvious that the watering down of the education system has a lot to do with the keeping in school of people who don't really belong there. Universities are stuffed full with people that have little interest in learning, but are simply there to have a good time or because they think they'll earn more money.

I have been told by experienced University staff, that courses have been dumbed down and simplified ad nauseam, because students have complained about the material being too difficult. Then, because Universities are a business, and students are the clients, they get what they want. Thus the more stupid people at University, the more stupid material there is taught at University, and then the more stupid lecturers there are to teach the stuff (to put it crudely). It is a vast build-up of mediocrity, and it is diffusing itself throughout the population, who actually think they've been well educated.

At the moment, almost no one gets what i would consider a good education, and most people get a terrible education. What i propose would rectify that (somewhat), and it would improve social mobility, because being educated would actually mean something again, and those who lack the passion and the aptitude would be doing something far more useful than studying some bullshit media degree.

Will have to reply to blade later, because i've got to be somewhere, and this piece of shit computer is pissing me right off.

[TonyMontana]

One of the better threads I've seen on ISH. Can't believe the OP has that many red bars. good posts by Dresta too. You guys are unfortunately wasting your breath on a BASKETBALL forum. The majority of the posters here have little interest/knowledge in anything except sports, entertainment, weed, and porn.

These same people who are butthurt are most likely delusional students at at shit-tier universities who think their degree guarantees them the world. College is no longer a guarantee to success, so wake up.

What do you fcukers think is going to prepare you better for a job? Shadowing a professional in your desired field of work(apprenticeship program) or going through year after year of schooling where all your taught is to memorize a bunch of bullshit that you will NEVER need in your desired field? There is a CLEAR problem with the education field

"I never commit to memory anything that can easily be looked up in a book"-Albert Einstein.

even goes against Einstein. How many people remember the useless shit they had to memorize to pass a test? Once you learn basic reading, writing, addition/subtraction 1-12 education is a joke. Social skills are the only thing of value after that.

[miller-time]

3. Apprenticeship > Education.

Before education, we have a thing call apprenticeship. A child learns from a true professional; the professional teaches him EVERYTHING from writing, math, reading, and, the most important part of education, HOW TO DO THE JOB. The lowest form of apprenticeship only takes 2 years, while the most difficult job takes no more than 6 years (Doctor for example).

I actually agree with most of what you said except for this bit. Becoming a doctor requires more than simply milling about with another doctor while they show you the ropes. Doctors (especially those working in hospitals) are incredibly busy. They do not have time to take a kid about with them. Things like medicine require universities for teaching because the job itself actually needs a lot of both rote and practical learning. Thousands of people are trying to become doctors but there aren't thousands of doctors and nurses out there with the time to teach them. An apprenticeship is fine when the professional can afford enough time to the apprentice. Studying doctors still have to do internships later on which is similar to an apprenticeship but they still need those early university years.

The thing with an apprenticeship is that it needs to be able to provide the professional or the business with something from the get go. The apprentice needs to contribute something to offset the time and effort that goes into training them and unfortunately not every modern job is capable of that sort of relationship. If you were to take a kid into a tech company and taught them programming it might take them 3 or 4 years before they can contribute anything worthwhile to the business. Why not just have them learn at a university and then get them in once they know what they are doing?

[click2kill]

One of the best posts that I've read on internet forums in a while. Society has been controlling us since we were born, Society dictates what it wants us to be, well **** em.

I bet this Rambo guy is smart IRL. :applause:

[ILLsmak]

Whats really essential in todays society is knowing the right material for your career. However i do find shit that i learned from grade one to twelve helpful as part of growing up

I learned a lot in that age range, too, but not at school. heh. I think I stopped learning in about 3rd grade.

Not everyone is suited to be trained for a job, either. Sometimes you have to present people choices and knowledge and let them find their own way.

School fails the most for intelligent people. Even moderately gifted people are ****ed by school. The thing is, there are programs for them. The way I see it, a gifted program, no matter what the level of the material is, is still school. What everyone (honestly, but especially those with more-than-average potential) needs is a more immersive, interactive school.

I'm sure a lot of teachers think it's enough to call on someone and have them come up to the chalkboard, but each student needs their own program. Teachers need to be able to look at the students as not only people but peers. They need to develop rapport. Classes are too big, I mean... can go on forever. If they even spent 30 minutes each day with a student, it would be infinitely more valuable than 8 solid hours of sitting at a desk.. all while forcing them to get up at the asscrack of dawn. **** school.

-Smak

[ILLsmak]

Or maybe there are just so many people with varying traits that it's highly unlikely that you are the best in any field.

Double post. This is bothersome.

And another reason why school is problematic for those people who actually have the potential to be "the best" in their field. Everyone is always telling them, and the system is telling them, there are other people like you. They stick you in a classroom and teach everyone the same thing for hours. haha.

That might work if you were trying to give basic instructions to a group before going on a field trip, but as education? I don't know.

The system is built to keep pushing people forward. It's like a conveyor belt. We'd all like to believe that those with special potential are plucked out and given chances to succeed, but that's not always true. I'd say at most 50% of the time, and that's a damn shame.

And think of all of the teachers you had that were kind people, who really meant it when they said, "Everyone is special! I love you all!" and then they sent you to the lunch room where they served you ice cream scoops of mashed potatoes and chicken with snotty gravy.

You see what I mean? School would work if A. Nobody got bored or B. Children weren't smart enough to meta-think, as in think about what school really is, because once they realize that, they will most likely rebel... because it really is a stupid idea. It keeps things going, it's good at finding everyone their place in life. Might not be their best potential place, but it makes them a cog. Beyond that, I don't think it offers anything, or if it does, it's due to teachers putting in much extra effort and the child's personal drive.

Which is also funny about school. It's like you are going to hold me captive for 8 hours, make me do a worksheet that is the exact same as I did yesterday except instead of single digit numbers it's got double digit numbers... and then say, "You need to be self motivated."

haha, maybe this doesn't bother anyone else as much as me, but it's one of those things that would be even funnier if it wasn't true.

-Smak

[miller-time]

I learned a lot in that age range, too, but not at school. heh. I think I stopped learning in about 3rd grade.

Not everyone is suited to be trained for a job, either. Sometimes you have to present people choices and knowledge and let them find their own way.

School fails the most for intelligent people. Even moderately gifted people are ****ed by school. The thing is, there are programs for them. The way I see it, a gifted program, no matter what the level of the material is, is still school. What everyone (honestly, but especially those with more-than-average potential) needs is a more immersive, interactive school.

I'm sure a lot of teachers think it's enough to call on someone and have them come up to the chalkboard, but each student needs their own program. Teachers need to be able to look at the students as not only people but peers. They need to develop rapport. Classes are too big, I mean... can go on forever. If they even spent 30 minutes each day with a student, it would be infinitely more valuable than 8 solid hours of sitting at a desk.. all while forcing them to get up at the asscrack of dawn. **** school.

-Smak

The thing is there is a difference between what school should be idealistically and what it can possibly be. The education system can obviously be a lot better but it can never be some 1 to 1 program that nurtures and encourages every student to reach their maximum potential. At some point we have to let practicality take over. To completely abandon the education system we have to have a complete social upheaval. Something most people right now cannot afford to do - partly because they are already living in a broken system and partly because they are benefiting from the current system. What happens if we only provide education up to the age of say 10? Do all of those kids go and get jobs and apprenticeships? Do some continue further schooling in specific disciplines? How do we know if a child is ready to leave school early? Is a child's individual intelligence a good enough indicator to allow them to make decisions that will effect the rest of their lives or not?

[IamRAMBO24]

The thing is there is a difference between what school should be idealistically and what it can possibly be. The education system can obviously be a lot better but it can never be some 1 to 1 program that nurtures and encourages every student to reach their maximum potential. At some point we have to let practicality take over. To completely abandon the education system we have to have a complete social upheaval. Something most people right now cannot afford to do - partly because they are already living in a broken system and partly because they are benefiting from the current system. What happens if we only provide education up to the age of say 10? Do all of those kids go and get jobs and apprenticeships? Do some continue further schooling in specific disciplines? How do we know if a child is ready to leave school early? Is a child's individual intelligence a good enough indicator to allow them to make decisions that will effect the rest of their lives or not?

Miller you are a matter of fact guy and truly one of the smarts around here, so I would like to present you one piece of evidence that reveals how much of a failure education has become in nourishing a child on an individual basis:

1. Apprenticeship

One child, one professional; sure some teachers in this field are expensive and not everyone could afford to be a doctor, engineer, or politician, etc. but the fact of the matter is a proper ivy league education isn't cheap either. The difference is this method of education developes a child on an individual basis (meaning the child chooses his direction in life, pays the teacher, and he guides him towards that direction) as oppose to encouraging all students to think alike and act alike.

Look at the evidence:

1. 12 years of public education will land you in an unskilled job working at minimum wage.

2. Under half the time, apprenticeship will land you a skilled job which will pay you $50,000+ based on the worth of a skilled laborer with that much expertise in today's work force.

Again, look at the facts of history, from Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Aristotle, to even Alexander the Great, etc. they all were under the guidance of apprenticeship.

It simply works.

This is the reason why very few geniuses come out of the public educational system due to its system of conformity.

[Guy Dudebro]

Rambo is a thoughtful dude, very smart.

Yeah buddy!

[Bandito]

One of the better threads I've seen on ISH. Can't believe the OP has that many red bars. good posts by Dresta too. You guys are unfortunately wasting your breath on a BASKETBALL forum. The majority of the posters here have little interest/knowledge in anything except sports, entertainment, weed, and porn.

These same people who are butthurt are most likely delusional students at at shit-tier universities who think their degree guarantees them the world. College is no longer a guarantee to success, so wake up.

What do you fcukers think is going to prepare you better for a job? Shadowing a professional in your desired field of work(apprenticeship program) or going through year after year of schooling where all your taught is to memorize a bunch of bullshit that you will NEVER need in your desired field? There is a CLEAR problem with the education field

"I never commit to memory anything that can easily be looked up in a book"-Albert Einstein.

even goes against Einstein. How many people remember the useless shit they had to memorize to pass a test? Once you learn basic reading, writing, addition/subtraction 1-12 education is a joke. Social skills are the only thing of value after that.200 words written and nothing of value was said:facepalm


@Miller-time: I think a combination of both can work. The military teaches you through the way of apprenticeship. (This only applies to the cardiopulmonary program) You take classes for 3 months (where they teach you everything you need), and after that you go to your phase 2. There you will take 2 months of class time that is going to help you through your 3 months of apprenticeship you're going to be doing. My job is comprised of thre different career that are interconnected: Cardiology, Pulmonary and Respiratory. Each job is different and they teach you to do that. THe theory of everything related to the job (the medicine part) you have to take in the classroom, but how to use the equipment you have to actually work on it.

In all I think apprenticeship (like I said before) it's necessary because the only way to learn is by actually working. Internships are a must in the field. But obviously you can't do all in the work field, because then it will be a memorization by practice because most of the works in the work field is pretty much routine, and the only way you're going to learn why you are doing what you're doing is by learning the theory first.



I actually agree with most of what you said except for this bit. Becoming a doctor requires more than simply milling about with another doctor while they show you the ropes. Doctors (especially those working in hospitals) are incredibly busy. They do not have time to take a kid about with them. Things like medicine require universities for teaching because the job itself actually needs a lot of both rote and practical learning. Thousands of people are trying to become doctors but there aren't thousands of doctors and nurses out there with the time to teach them. An apprenticeship is fine when the professional can afford enough time to the apprentice. Studying doctors still have to do internships later on which is similar to an apprenticeship but they still need those early university years. What I don't get about being a doctor in the states is why they have to take pre med and have a 4 year degree when in most countries you can start studying to be a doctor from the get go. I think studying to be a doctor should need for you to have a bachelor in science when they will teach all that in med school anyways. Spain for example, their medicine program is a 5 degree, and that's because an 18 year old can study medicine right away. The US makes you have a degree, that is in itself dumb.

[IamRAMBO24]

The thing is there is a difference between what school should be idealistically and what it can possibly be.

It is no longer "ideal" when its been done before. It is actually a regression and a blatant attack on human potential.

Education makes it hard to love learning. Creativity is shattered. You can see this in your hard to read textbooks and the classroom itself: the chairs itself are structured to be as uncomfortable as possible (hard wood and tight), and even most schools are structured like a prison. For example, recess is the same, the principle acts like a warden, security guards are basically prison guards, not to mention, the school is the only place where citizens are not allowed freedom of speech, and some schools even go as far as to make students dress alike - there's a school in texas that requires students to wear jumpsuits if they misbehave as well (I'm not sure if this is still ongoing).

[Bandito]

2. Under half the time, apprenticeship will land you a skilled job which will pay you $50,000+ based on the worth of a skilled laborer with that much expertise in today's work force.

Again, look at the facts of history, from Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Aristotle, to even Alexander the Great, etc. they all were under the guidance of apprenticeship.Most of those are artist or warriors bro. Is no the the same thing. And Aristotle went to school since he was young,the school at the time was no the same as ours is today.

[IamRAMBO24]

200 words written and nothing of value was said:facepalm



He made some strong points you totally missed since you are closing your mind off since it is a blatant attack on your world ideology (don't worry, denial is the first step towards acceptance :D )

1. Education doesn't always lead to successs. He is absolutely correct in this. The amount of dumba*ses fars outweigh the amount of success. We should no longer blame the students, we should point the fingers at the system itself. We all agree bad parenting leads to bad children, so why is it so hard to accept bad education will lead to bad students?

2. His support of shadowing a professional is spot on simply because everybody in here probably has experience in this subject matter when they start a new job. How long does it take you to learn the job? 1 month or less to learn the basics and 1-2 years to be truly good at it, so if education is truly meant to create skilled laborers, then why does it take 16 years of education to do so?

3. He cited Einstein, and Einstein said that. Like I said before, every great argument has a genius to back it up. :applause:

[Dresta]

Finding who is gifted and who isn't is extremely difficult. Speaking from personal experience, I used to stutter when I was younger and had a difficult time speaking (I did not learn English till 8 since I was born in India and English I learned later). Somebody in the US school when I moved here at 8yrs old felt I needed special education on the side because they felt I needed extra help. Until 7th grade, I was attending that sort of class where one of the things I had to do was differentiate between different animals and colors and letters/numbers, etc. One of my regular teachers found out and she went straight to the principal, and they had me removed from that class right away.

This is just one example of how difficult it is to tell who needs special help and who is gifted. Things like stuttering and how a person speaks or takes exams could be easily misleading. IQ tests don't work properly. What do you use to differentiated between gifted and not gifted? As an introvert, I can tell you right now that people have a difficult time understanding introverted people. What you say is easier said than done in practice.



You're right that exam scores are big in determining how successful a school is. I don't think private school have to publicly release their exam scores, but they're used internally. The issue is though: what else do you use to determine how successful a whole school system is? The exam outcome sum of the average student is the simplest way to do it for 10,000+ students.

There are private entities in USA called "Governor's schools", etc that students could be chosen to attend depending on your grades & if you choose to. I think each highschool gets to choose only a few students to attend those schools so they interview each of the candidates to see who is the sharpest. The state pays for that school along with funds from large private companies. Each state has a few of these but it is only for the most gifted that you can tell right away that there is something special about them (introverts may be exempt).

Separating average from above average students is very difficult. Grades are the simplest way to do it unless if you have the time, money & resources to closely analyze and interview every single individual that attends (which nobody does). Again, you propose an ideal system but it is unrealistic.I agree, it is very difficult, which is why i'd leave it until maybe 13, and ensure that there are still paths back into education for those who develop later. I also think allowing the schools to develop their own forms of selection would be more effective than one standardized test taken across the country. They can gear their examinations and interviews towards finding the kind of students they want, so that the schools with more effective forms of selection will get better students. (i took private school examinations at 11, and the way they test is pretty rigorous: maths, verbal and non-verbal reasoning and english tests, followed by an interview)

I by no means think this system would work without friction, or that mistakes wouldn't be made, just that it would be far more effective in getting the people most suited to education and further learning a first rate education. At the moment in the UK, it is either pay for private, or go to your local comprehensive. The better comprehensives are in more expensive areas, so the sole determinant of education standard is money, not aptitude. And even the expensive places no longer do much more than ensure good grades - most of them don't really teach very much.

And i don't think it is any less realistic than thinking that educating everyone in the same way, to a progressively lower standard, and making it compulsory till the age of 18, is going to enlighten anybody.

edit: have you read any accounts of the old British private schooling system? The ones that were rather repressive and unpleasant, but that provided excellent educations. Places where the dons would take an active concern in the educations of individual students, recommending them books that would spur them on, that they could relate to, that they would find useful and interesting etc. Plus, the work they set and the amount of rigour required to complete it was in a different dimension to what it is now.

[IamRAMBO24]

Most of those are artist or warriors bro. Is no the the same thing. And Aristotle went to school since he was young,the school at the time was no the same as ours is today.

Aristotle was under apprenticeship from Plato. Had he went through the educational system, we would be talking about how great he was at flipping burgers rather than revolutionizing human development.

[niko]

Double post. This is bothersome.

And another reason why school is problematic for those people who actually have the potential to be "the best" in their field. Everyone is always telling them, and the system is telling them, there are other people like you. They stick you in a classroom and teach everyone the same thing for hours. haha.

That might work if you were trying to give basic instructions to a group before going on a field trip, but as education? I don't know.

The system is built to keep pushing people forward. It's like a conveyor belt. We'd all like to believe that those with special potential are plucked out and given chances to succeed, but that's not always true. I'd say at most 50% of the time, and that's a damn shame.

And think of all of the teachers you had that were kind people, who really meant it when they said, "Everyone is special! I love you all!" and then they sent you to the lunch room where they served you ice cream scoops of mashed potatoes and chicken with snotty gravy.

You see what I mean? School would work if A. Nobody got bored or B. Children weren't smart enough to meta-think, as in think about what school really is, because once they realize that, they will most likely rebel... because it really is a stupid idea. It keeps things going, it's good at finding everyone their place in life. Might not be their best potential place, but it makes them a cog. Beyond that, I don't think it offers anything, or if it does, it's due to teachers putting in much extra effort and the child's personal drive.

Which is also funny about school. It's like you are going to hold me captive for 8 hours, make me do a worksheet that is the exact same as I did yesterday except instead of single digit numbers it's got double digit numbers... and then say, "You need to be self motivated."

haha, maybe this doesn't bother anyone else as much as me, but it's one of those things that would be even funnier if it wasn't true.

-Smak
You didn't learn anything past grade 3? So you're reading, writing, all of this came from grade 3 or before or you self taught? I call bullshit.

What school did you go to btw? The sciences, the chemistry, biology, etc. that i learned in high school definitely was stuff i didn't know. I had physics, calculus. No, i don't use most of it in school, but the higher level math ability certainly helps. Just the way it helps you to structure finding answers to problems.

[Bandito]

He made some strong points you totally missed since you are closing your mind off since it is a blatant attack on your world ideology (don't worry, denial is the first step towards acceptance :D )

1. Education doesn't always lead to successs. He is absolutely correct in this. The amount of dumba*ses fars outweigh the amount of success. We should no longer blame the students, we should point the fingers at the system itself. We all agree bad parenting leads to bad children, so why is it so hard to accept bad education will lead to bad students?

2. His support of shadowing a professional is spot on simply because everybody in here probably has experience in this subject matter when they start a new job. How long does it take you to learn the job? 1 month or less to learn the basics and 1-2 years to be truly good at it, so if education is truly meant to create skilled laborers, then why does it take 16 years of education to do so?

3. He cited Einstein, and Einstein said that. Like I said before, every great argument has a genius to back it up. :applause:Dude something you're not getting is education is not only on the classroom, there actually something called self education. Some people can learn by themselves. Heck I am ahead in most of my programming classes because in my free time all I do is read programmign books and practice so I always get A's (and get bored as heck) in those classes. Bill Gates even went to college for some time but probably felt that he was above that because he learn how to program by himself. Then there is Steve Jobs, the inventor of apple products. Or Mack Zuckengberg (is that how you write his name) the inventor of Facebook. All of them had to learn by themselves. And programming is not something you learn by watching someone do crap, you have to read a lot of books in order to learn, and I am talking from experience.

Same with medicine, there is no way with a measly apprencticeship you are going to learn how to operate a person...

[niko]

It's like two different threads, Dresta is dropping this well thought out plan that he derived from the vast knowledge he draws from, and Rambo is arguing semantics in bold print.

[IamRAMBO24]

It's like two different threads, Dresta is dropping this well thought out plan that he derived from the vast knowledge he draws from, and Rambo is arguing semantics in bold print.

:lol

And niko still does not have a point.

[IamRAMBO24]

Dude something you're not getting is education is not only on the classroom, there actually something called self education. Some people can learn by themselves. Heck I am ahead in most of my programming classes because in my free time all I do is read programmign books and practice so I always get A's (and get bored as heck) in those classes. Bill Gates even went to college for some time but probably felt that he was above that because he learn how to program by himself. Then there is Steve Jobs, the inventor of apple products. Or Mack Zuckengberg (is that how you write his name) the inventor of Facebook. All of them had to learn by themselves. And programming is not something you learn by watching someone do crap, you have to read a lot of books in order to learn, and I am talking from experience.

Same with medicine, there is no way with a measly apprencticeship you are going to learn how to operate a person...

Don't you see the contradiction in your argument? You had to learn outside of school to be good in your field.

Ponder on that thought for a moment.

[niko]

Don't you see the contradiction in your argument? You had to learn outside of school to be good in your field.

Ponder on that thought for a moment.
Everyone does. But a lot of the basic stuff you need for any job you learn in school. Especially something technical like engineering, or if you wanted to be a dentist, something like that.

What do you think an apprenticeship is? It's a person working, letting you watch them and work with them. They teach you what they are doing, not the background. If you want to be an engineer, you need to know the math so that the building doesn't fall down. An apprenticeship doesn't give you that, there isn't time you sit down and learn math. A dentist doesn't teach you anatomy, he doesn't break out the book and show you internal parts. That you need to learn on your own and in many cases (again with more technical jobs) you need to be taught, which requires "school".

Your argument is weird.

[IamRAMBO24]

Everyone does. But a lot of the basic stuff you need for any job you learn in school. Especially something technical like engineering, or if you wanted to be a dentist, something like that.

What do you think an apprenticeship is? It's a person working, letting you watch them and work with them. They teach you what they are doing, not the background. If you want to be an engineer, you need to know the math so that the building doesn't fall down. An apprenticeship doesn't give you that, there isn't time you sit down and learn math. A dentist doesn't teach you anatomy, he doesn't break out the book and show you internal parts. That you need to learn on your own and in many cases (again with more technical jobs) you need to be taught, which requires "school".

Your argument is weird.

Education is based on rote memorization. Explain to me how this method of "teaching" is relevant to "thinking on your own?" When you are told to memorize something and repeat it on a test, you're not thinking homeboy. Don't confuse the two.

[niko]

Education is based on rote memorization. Explain to me how this method of "teaching" is relevant on thinking on your own? When you are told to memorize something and repeat it on a test, you're not thinking homeboy. Don't confuse the two.
Not sure what you want to argue but you can't "Apprentice" your way to most complex jobs, you need to have the background behind it in some sort of academic setting. It's just what it is. Both are important. You can't argue one or the other, you can't be in those type of jobs without BOTH. Period.

[Dresta]

It is no longer "ideal" when its been done before. It is actually a regression and a blatant attack on human potential.

Education makes it hard to love learning. Creativity is shattered. You can see this in your hard to read textbooks and the classroom itself: the chairs itself are structured to be as uncomfortable as possible (hard wood and tight), and even most schools are structured like a prison. For example, recess is the same, the principle acts like a warden, security guards are basically prison guards, not to mention, the school is the only place where citizens are not allowed freedom of speech, and some schools even go as far as to make students dress alike - there's a school in texas that requires students to wear jumpsuits if they misbehave as well (I'm not sure if this is still ongoing).
Completely true. What schools generally want to see most is obedience. Intelligent students are frequently singled out and disfavoured as 'troublemakers' and the like. And it doesn't help that most bright kids will be bored to death by schooling, and can thus be easily deterred from learning. Then many teachers are also dumb as bricks; i had one in primary school assure me that Dolphins were fish when i said they were mammals :lol .

The only time i ever learned anything in school was when i had a teacher who was passionate about his subject, who would go off book and tell interesting anecdotes to help explain concepts and aid understanding, and was very unconventional in his mode of teaching (about 2 of these). Most teachers, however, were boring drones, and they tend to not like the innovative and interesting ones, often aiming to repress their idiosyncratic ways of teaching; i remember having a history teacher at 15-16 who taught by dictating out of the text book.

:facepalm

[IamRAMBO24]

Not sure what you want to argue but you can't "Apprentice" your way to most complex jobs, you need to have the background behind it in some sort of academic setting. It's just what it is. Both are important. You can't argue one or the other, you can't be in those type of jobs without BOTH. Period.

I like how you are dodging my argument.

Let me repeat, rote memorization does not lead to thinking. It goes to reason, if you are told something and forced to repeat it, you are not thinking but merely regurgitating what you were being told.

The idea education leads to true learning is a myth.

[niko]

I like how you are dodging my argument.

Let me repeat, rote memorization does not lead to thinking. It goes to reason, if you are told something and forced to repeat it, you are not thinking but merely regurgitating what you were being told.

The idea education leads to true learning is a myth.
I'm not sure what you want to do, you seem to want to engage in some sort of intellectual exercise where we nitpick each other. I don't get it, are you discussing a topic or trying to win an argument in some way, dishonest and with semantics?

[Bandito]

Don't you see the contradiction in your argument? You had to learn outside of school to be good in your field.

Ponder on that thought for a moment.
Of course i had to learn outside the field. That much is obvious. But the problem with your statement is that i needed some school time before i could do apprenticeship. Do you think the teachers were going to treat ICU patients on the ventilators without learning the basics left. Just watching people do their work is not going to teach me the basics i needed in order to do the job. That much is certain.

Did you read everything i posted or just read what you wanted to read?

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm studying for a BTec in engineering at college – but alongside that I do practical work at Rolls-Royce. The academic side of it links up with everything we're doing on the job. We learn the theory behind the work we're doing: we might study forging or making moulds, but we're learning about why it works as well as how it works. And it's very diverse – they teach us life skills like business and communication, as well as engineering.

This year we're leaning the basics – we get trained on how to use different machines and equipment properly. But next year we'll be going out into business and applying all the skills and information and knowledge we've learned to making Rolls-Royce products. It's challenging, but not to the point where you want to give up. At school you get students who just cruise through and don't really care, but here everyone is really focussed and ambitious.

I didn't hear about the position until just before the deadline for the application date. I thought I might as well go for it and as soon as I got here I knew it was where I needed to be.

I had thought about going back to sixth form, but I realised the apprenticeship would allow me to carry on with my education and earn at the same time. A lot of my friends are in sixth form and, although they're learning, they're missing out on the practical side of things. My apprenticeship has made me grow up a lot and become more mature.

Engineering might be seen as male-dominated, but everyone here has the same attitude towards work and it doesn't make a difference if you're female or not. And now I'm hoping to go on to get a degree – as part of the apprenticeship scheme – and then work up as high as I can in the business. But I don't want to limit myself to one particular thing because any experience is good. I like variety – and that's what you get on an apprenticeship.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/11/why-i-chose-apprenticeship-over-university

[niko]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/11/why-i-chose-apprenticeship-over-university
The first thing the person says is they are studying in college. :confusedshrug:

[IamRAMBO24]

The first thing the person says is they are studying in college. :confusedshrug:

The system worked in the past and it is working today. In the past, the student would be under the guidance of a "master" who would teach him all the basics in reading, writing, philosophy, etc. He didn't have to go through 14 years of education to start learning his vocation.

Switzerland applies the system at the age of 15-16 and is not only ranked high in reading, writing, and math, but also has an unemployment rate of 2x lower than the national average.

[niko]

The system worked in the past and it is working today. In the past, the student would be under the guidance of a "master" who would teach him all the basics in reading, writing, philosophy, etc. He didn't have to go through 14 years of education to start learning his vocation.

Switzerland applies the system at the age of 15-16 and is not only ranked high in reading, writing, and math, but also has an unemployment rate of 2x lower than the national average.
Again, the person says they studied in college and are then apprenticing. You HAVE to do that. Their is no master now to teach the vocation the way you are suggesting. That's not changing the education system, that's taking proffessionals who have no time to do so and asking them to be not only the teacher of the vocation, but a general teacher who makes sure the next generation has the basic skills. Basically, you are saying a surgeon should teach anatomy. That makes no sense. It's such overkill.

[ballup]

Double post. This is bothersome.

And another reason why school is problematic for those people who actually have the potential to be "the best" in their field. Everyone is always telling them, and the system is telling them, there are other people like you. They stick you in a classroom and teach everyone the same thing for hours. haha.

That might work if you were trying to give basic instructions to a group before going on a field trip, but as education? I don't know.

The system is built to keep pushing people forward. It's like a conveyor belt. We'd all like to believe that those with special potential are plucked out and given chances to succeed, but that's not always true. I'd say at most 50% of the time, and that's a damn shame.

And think of all of the teachers you had that were kind people, who really meant it when they said, "Everyone is special! I love you all!" and then they sent you to the lunch room where they served you ice cream scoops of mashed potatoes and chicken with snotty gravy.

You see what I mean? School would work if A. Nobody got bored or B. Children weren't smart enough to meta-think, as in think about what school really is, because once they realize that, they will most likely rebel... because it really is a stupid idea. It keeps things going, it's good at finding everyone their place in life. Might not be their best potential place, but it makes them a cog. Beyond that, I don't think it offers anything, or if it does, it's due to teachers putting in much extra effort and the child's personal drive.

Which is also funny about school. It's like you are going to hold me captive for 8 hours, make me do a worksheet that is the exact same as I did yesterday except instead of single digit numbers it's got double digit numbers... and then say, "You need to be self motivated."

haha, maybe this doesn't bother anyone else as much as me, but it's one of those things that would be even funnier if it wasn't true.

-Smak
I agree with this sentiment. School is painful, especially if you are above average and the structure of the school does not give you the freedom over what you learn. In highschool, I couldn't take physics until I took biology and chemistry. Knowledge of those two subjects is not necessary for kinetics. We aren't allowed to explore and we are dependant on teachers to provoke interest in subjects. I would have loved to take physics as a freshman, instead I tok it as a junior in a class filled with senioitis students. This was an honors class too and I was bored because the teacher had to slow the pace down for those idgaf students that made up 90% of the class.

[ballup]

Dresta has some good points that I'll address when I get to a computer later tonight.

[bladefd]

I agree, it is very difficult, which is why i'd leave it until maybe 13, and ensure that there are still paths back into education for those who develop later. I also think allowing the schools to develop their own forms of selection would be more effective than one standardized test taken across the country. They can gear their examinations and interviews towards finding the kind of students they want, so that the schools with more effective forms of selection will get better students. (i took private school examinations at 11, and the way they test is pretty rigorous: maths, verbal and non-verbal reasoning and english tests, followed by an interview)

The thing is that if every school system takes completely different tests and there is no standardized test (SAT, ACT in USA), how do colleges decide between two students that are close in other things (community service, contributions, recommendations, etc)? You need as many factors as possible, and I SATs and ACTs are highly respected in USA.

You don't know what to exactly prepare for so you can memorize all you want, and you may never be tested on it. Every test in math has different variations of a concept so if you don't know a concept, you're out of luck. Reading comprehension also differs so there is nothing to memorize (maybe you can memorize the dictionary lol). Writing is also open-ended so you will not know what the question is until you open the test booklet, and memorizing will not help that.

I don't think there is any oral/verbal testing on SAT/ACT because I never took an oral test.


And i don't think it is any less realistic than thinking that educating everyone in the same way, to a progressively lower standard, and making it compulsory till the age of 18, is going to enlighten anybody.

edit: have you read any accounts of the old British private schooling system? The ones that were rather repressive and unpleasant, but that provided excellent educations. Places where the dons would take an active concern in the educations of individual students, recommending them books that would spur them on, that they could relate to, that they would find useful and interesting etc. Plus, the work they set and the amount of rigour required to complete it was in a different dimension to what it is now.

You said it should be required till 13. What about after 13? You do realize that a 14yr old kid cannot make a living for themselves right? They will probably end up on the streets causing trouble. For average human, common sense does not fully develop till 22-23 (it is doable in society at 18-19). K-12 typically runs till 18, which we as society consider the age when we consider an individual an adult.

I am not famaliar with old British private schooling system, but I'm a bit aware of Indian private schooling systems that are based on the old British. Decent education was limited to upper-class and upper-middle class. The rest of middle-class depended on who could afford it and location (essentially limited - stories were rampant of how an individual was first to get an education in the family, today anybody can get an education regardless of class, gender, race). A large number of people couldn't afford it at all. So it depends on a lot of other factors as well.

[bladefd]

The thing with an apprenticeship is that it needs to be able to provide the professional or the business with something from the get go. The apprentice needs to contribute something to offset the time and effort that goes into training them and unfortunately not every modern job is capable of that sort of relationship. If you were to take a kid into a tech company and taught them programming it might take them 3 or 4 years before they can contribute anything worthwhile to the business. Why not just have them learn at a university and then get them in once they know what they are doing?

Absolutely.

That is also what internships are for, but you don't just walk in with limited basic skills and basic knowledge expecting to be taught everything you need to know on the go. If you're trying to become an engineer, you can't expect to be taught how to do calculus on the job without ever learning it beforehand in school. This is why apprenticeship is limited to certain professions and not used in every profession. It is not realistic for the technical professions (i.e. engineers, doctors, programmers, dentist, computer analyst, etc).

[ballup]

I think it's naive to believe that an apprenticeship system would work. How exactly will there be enough "masters" for kids? Even if there were enough people for this system to work, why would any adult in the private sectors spend their time tutoring a kid when they can be climbing up the ladder? How will they be compensated for their services? Isn't that also going to take away jobs from educators?

[miller-time]

One child, one professional; sure some teachers in this field are expensive and Look at the evidence:

1. 12 years of public education will land you in an unskilled job working at minimum wage.

2. Under half the time, apprenticeship will land you a skilled job which will pay you $50,000+ based on the worth of a skilled laborer with that much expertise in today's work force.

Again, look at the facts of history, from Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Aristotle, to even Alexander the Great, etc. they all were under the guidance of apprenticeship.

It simply works.

This is the reason why very few geniuses come out of the public educational system due to its system of conformity.

First I'm not exactly sure what data you are using to state that few geniuses come out of public education? Second you have condensed several millenniums worth of geniuses into one sentence to demonstrate that apprenticeships automatically produce geniuses. The world those people lived in was so much different to the world we live in today. With the industrial revolution and now computer revolution we don't have enough jobs to even give children so that they can become apprentices.

Shutting down the education system will essentially lead to millions of children roaming the streets because they have nothing to do. For better or worse in some sense the school system is a daycare center. Even 50 years ago kids often left school around 13 to 16, but those days are gone. It is increasingly difficult to provide children with apprenticeships that will lead them to careers. Sure we can give them jobs pushing trolleys or picking up rubbish but I don't think that is the idea you have in mind. As I said we are entrenched and committed to the system we currently have. And I think the best way to do that is to try and produce teachers that actually care (not ones that are just doing it for the paycheck) and to create syllabuses that are more malleable. Ones where teachers can have some control over what is being taught in their classrooms and modify lessons to best suit the students in their classes. A lot of the stifling bureaucracy needs to be done away with.

[IamRAMBO24]

First I'm not exactly sure what data you are using to state that few geniuses come out of public education? Second you have condensed several millenniums worth of geniuses into one sentence to demonstrate that apprenticeships automatically produce geniuses. The world those people lived in was so much different to the world we live in today. With the industrial revolution and now computer revolution we don't have enough jobs to even give children so that they can become apprentices.
.

I'm basing my entire opinion on facts.

Fact #1:

Benjamin Bloom (creator of the educational curriculum) said, "The purpose of education is not to teach, but to condition the behavior of the students."

What does he mean by this?

Education is created (through financing) by some of the richest corporate men in america. Their main goal is to create worker drones. The main purpose of the system is to create more unskilled laborers working at minimum pay than skill laborers. This sounds like an absurd statement, but you have to look at the facts: the fact is we have more unskilled workers than skilled ones, so the system is working based on the outcome. Sure some students tough it out and go to college, but that's actually a minority.

It doesn't matter if you get better teachers or put more money in the system, the fact of the matter is if the curriculum wants to teach mediocrity, then you will need to change the curriculum in order to change the system.

Bloom said it himself, "Memorization is the lowest level of thinking."

Ponder on this thought for a moment. Why would education blatantly encourage the dumbest kind of thinking if it is looking out for the best interest of the students?

[miller-time]

Ponder on this thought for a moment. Why would education blatantly encourage the dumbest kind of thinking if it is looking out for the best interest of the students?

But it doesn't necessarily reach that goal (the one you are implying that is). There are still geniuses coming out of the education system every day. The real reason we will NEVER have another da Vinci is because modern science is so highly specialized that (polymath or not) most people are going to be working in only one or maybe two highly specialized sub-disciplines. The geniuses today are working in teams of 10 or 20 or more people. They still exist but they are just not going to be making the same headlines the Newtons, Darwins, and Galileos were.

As I said, the education system is in part a daycare center. It has to be. The apprenticeship model is just not viable for modern society. Instead of 20 people being needed to build something from scratch we can do it with 1 man and a few machines. And I'm not saying that I think this is a great thing here. Obviously your ideal situation would be preferable, but I really don't think it is achievable. Re-read the last bit of my last post to see what I think needs to be done to fix the problem.

[IamRAMBO24]

But it doesn't necessarily reach that goal (the one you are implying that is). There are still geniuses coming out of the education system every day. The real reason we will NEVER have another da Vinci is because modern science is so highly specialized that (polymath or not) most people are going to be working in only one or maybe two highly specialized sub-disciplines. The geniuses today are working in teams of 10 or 20 or more people. They still exist but they are just not going to be making the same headlines the Newtons, Darwins, and Galileos were.

As I said, the education system is in part a daycare center. It has to be. The apprenticeship model is just not viable for modern society. Instead of 20 people being needed to build something from scratch we can do it with 1 man and a few machines. And I'm not saying that I think this is a great thing here. Obviously your ideal situation would be preferable, but I really don't think it is achievable. Re-read the last bit of my last post to see what I think needs to be done to fix the problem.

I read it. You said we need better teachers that care.

It doesn't matter if they care or not. They have to abide by the curriculum if they want to keep their jobs. Sure sometimes they might creatively teach it, but they are still teaching the same sh*t, which isn't really teaching at all since the purpose of the curriculum is to condition the behaviors of the students. This is the reason why the system is based on memorization. Re-education camps in 3rd world countries are based on repitition and memorization. The military is based on the same thing.

Many of you have been deceived by its true intent, so I'm telling you now, research Bloom and understand how the system truly works. Everything you have been lead to believe is actually the opposite of it.

[Myth]

Came in here to see if this thread is just as ridiculous as it started.


I'm basing my entire opinion on facts.

Fact #1:

Benjamin Bloom (creator of the educational curriculum) said, "The purpose of education is not to teach, but to condition the behavior of the students."


IamRAMBO24 is calling other people's opinions facts. Yep, just as ridiculous.

[IamRAMBO24]

Came in here to see if this thread is just as ridiculous as it started.



IamRAMBO24 is calling other people's opinions facts. Yep, just as ridiculous.


It's Benjamin Bloom's opinion. He created the entire curriculum for education. It is the only opinion that matters.

The statement, "Bloom said the purpose of education is not to teach but to condition the behaviors of students" is a factual statement because guess what dumbsh*t, he said it and wrote an entire psychological guideline on how to acheive this means. Go play with daddy's bouncy balls because this thread is obviously way above your pay grade.

[IamRAMBO24]

Anyways I spent some time creating a video explaining the exact methodology Bloom used to manipulate the behaviors of students.

*Warning* this will change a lot of world views. I will create a part 2 if you guys are interested.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxHMzj3Y2yk&feature=youtu.be

[Myth]

It's Benjamin Bloom's opinion. He created the entire curriculum for education. It is the only opinion that matters.

The statement, "Bloom said the purpose of education is not to teach but to condition the behaviors of students" is a factual statement because guess what dumbsh*t, he said it and wrote an entire psychological guideline on how to acheive this means. Go play with daddy's bouncy balls because this thread is obviously way above your pay grade.

That is like saying the only opinions that matter regarding the USA are the country's founders. And still, opinions aren't facts. Maybe you should have stayed in school.

Anyway, I'm out of this stupid thread. Enjoy trolling.

[IamRAMBO24]

That is like saying the only opinions that matter regarding the USA are the country's founders. And still, opinions aren't facts. Maybe you should have stayed in school.

Anyway, I'm out of this stupid thread. Enjoy trolling.

You're a f*ckin idiot.

If I were to say, "JFK said ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country, guess what, that is a factual statement. He said it. It has been well documented. It is not MY opinion Bloom is manipulating the behavior of students. He is not afraid to admit it and I outlined the exact procedure in the above video, albeit it's incomplete since it's a pretty complex methodology.

Watch the video and be prepared for a rude awakening (of course, if you actually understand it).

[niko]

I'm basing my entire opinion on facts.

Fact #1:

Benjamin Bloom (creator of the educational curriculum) said, "The purpose of education is not to teach, but to condition the behavior of the students."

What does he mean by this?

Education is created (through financing) by some of the richest corporate men in america. Their main goal is to create worker drones. The main purpose of the system is to create more unskilled laborers working at minimum pay than skill laborers. This sounds like an absurd statement, but you have to look at the facts: the fact is we have more unskilled workers than skilled ones, so the system is working based on the outcome. Sure some students tough it out and go to college, but that's actually a minority.

It doesn't matter if you get better teachers or put more money in the system, the fact of the matter is if the curriculum wants to teach mediocrity, then you will need to change the curriculum in order to change the system.

Bloom said it himself, "Memorization is the lowest level of thinking."

Ponder on this thought for a moment. Why would education blatantly encourage the dumbest kind of thinking if it is looking out for the best interest of the students?

I think you need better education to know the meaning of the word fact. :lol

[dr.hee]

I think you need better education to know the meaning of the word fact. :lol

Don't hate on him, Rambo dropped out of his 6 year apprenticeship with a native English speaker. So he's missing quite a lot...

[Jello]

Anyways I spent some time creating a video explaining the exact methodology Bloom used to manipulate the behaviors of students.

*Warning* this will change a lot of world views. I will create a part 2 if you guys are interested.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxHMzj3Y2yk&feature=youtu.be
Troll confirmed.

[bladefd]

Troll confirmed.

Don't respond to IamRambo. He is a blabbering fool that is simply droning on and on with agenda-led nonsense. He is not even worth a response as I realized pages ago.

[ace23]

I think you need better education to know the meaning of the word fact. :lol
tbr he's right. fact is that bloom said that.

[Out_In_Utah]

tbr he's right. fact is that bloom said that.

OP is a dumbass and a tool. Now, I will base my opinions on facts.

Fact #1: It has been stated that OP is a dumbass.

Fact #2: It has been stated that OP is a tool.

[ace23]

OP is a dumbass and a tool. Now, I will base my opinions on facts.

Fact #1: It has been stated that OP is a dumbass.

Fact #2: It has been stated that OP is a tool.
:roll:

Yeah, he's obviously a dumbass troll, but he wasn't wrong technically.

[IamRAMBO24]

I think you need better education to know the meaning of the word fact. :lol

Obviously you don't. It can be used contextually as a truthful statement. I used it correctly while you guys are pulling at straws to make me out as an idiot because you have not clicked on the link video I made nor are you willing to accept the truth that challenges your complete world view.

Education is a huge world view for many of you guys, so of course I kind of expected this retaliation.

[IamRAMBO24]

tbr he's right. fact is that bloom said that.

Damn right, I quoted Bloom, and said it was a fact he said that, which is a correct usage of the term. They're just pulling out ad hocs because they are too lazy to do their homework and come up with a proper rebuttal.

[IamRAMBO24]

Troll confirmed.

Thanks for not addressing anything I brought up in that video.

Watch it again and attack my point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxHMzj3Y2yk&feature=youtu.be

[IamRAMBO24]

OP is a dumbass and a tool. Now, I will base my opinions on facts.

Fact #1: It has been stated that OP is a dumbass.

Fact #2: It has been stated that OP is a tool.

It has also been stated I am a genius as well.

:rolleyes:

Saying Bloom is conditioning the behaviors of students is a fact because that is what his technique is doing, especially his mastery of learning scheme. He is a behavioral psychologist and he is using Skinner's operant conditioning and applying it to education to create more worker drones. That is not my opinion nor is it anyone elses opinion, it is a fact. Bloom wrote multiple books about it and have been clear on his true intent.

[JohnnySic]

School is fun. If you didn't like school, gtfo.

[IamRAMBO24]

*bump

So niko can defend himself with this comment:

"I think you need better education to know the meaning of the word fact. :lol"

I quoted Bloom and said he said, "The purpose of education is not to teach but to condition the behavior of students."

Niko believes that statement is not factual although Bloom said it. I don't understand where he is coming from and would like him to elaborate on his meaning of "fact." I was always under the impression if some famous figure said something (and it was documented) it could be consider a fact he said it.

Am I wrong?

[miller-time]

Niko believes that statement is not factual although Bloom said it.

Yes Bloom said it. But you have to demonstrate why it is a factual statement. A quote isn't a demonstration of somethings existence. The only fact you have presented is that Bloom had an opinion or hypothesis or theory (which one I don't know) on education. Education isn't a static thing, it is always undergoing changes, some good some bad, but saying education is X because some guy in the 50s had some input on it does not mean it is a factual statement about the nature and intention of education.

[IamRAMBO24]

Yes Bloom said it. But you have to demonstrate why it is a factual statement. A quote isn't a demonstration of somethings existence. The only fact you have presented is that Bloom had an opinion or hypothesis or theory (which one I don't know) on education. Education isn't a static thing, it is always undergoing changes, some good some bad, but saying education is X because some guy in the 50s had some input on it does not mean it is a factual statement about the nature and intention of education.

Yes it does.

The curriculum Bloom created is being used today, so it goes to reason his intent (changing the behavior) is relevant today.

[Dresta]

Yes Bloom said it. But you have to demonstrate why it is a factual statement. A quote isn't a demonstration of somethings existence. The only fact you have presented is that Bloom had an opinion or hypothesis or theory (which one I don't know) on education. Education isn't a static thing, it is always undergoing changes, some good some bad, but saying education is X because some guy in the 50s had some input on it does not mean it is a factual statement about the nature and intention of education.
Actually, education determined and fed down by the state, like most of what the state does, is very static. It is part of the problem with having a education system that rotates around the state (i.e. planned centrally, by some bureaucrats in a room, and then entrenched in the psyche of teachers throughout the country).

[niko]

*bump

So niko can defend himself with this comment:

"I think you need better education to know the meaning of the word fact. :lol"

I quoted Bloom and said he said, "The purpose of education is not to teach but to condition the behavior of students."

Niko believes that statement is not factual although Bloom said it. I don't understand where he is coming from and would like him to elaborate on his meaning of "fact." I was always under the impression if some famous figure said something (and it was documented) it could be consider a fact he said it.

Am I wrong?
It's a fact that he said the words. That a famous persons said words doesn't make the thought contained in them a fact.

What the **** is wrong with you? Now you want to argue what the word fact means? It is a fact that you are a moron. It is a fact that I am done with this thread because it is stupid. It is a fact that you need more to do in your life because somehow you find this satisfying.

:facepalm

[Go Getter]

:facepalm

Apprenticeship was the universal education before public education. Education was a means to create more worker drones and less professionals. Do you think we would have a Mcdonald's worker today if apprenticeship was the norm?
Who wants an apprentice that can't conjugate a verb or do basic math?

No matter what system we have somebody will need to cook food, sweep floors, and take care of the sick and elderly.

[miller-time]

Actually, education determined and fed down by the state, like most of what the state does, is very static. It is part of the problem with having a education system that rotates around the state (i.e. planned centrally, by some bureaucrats in a room, and then entrenched in the psyche of teachers throughout the country).

Being entrenched in that process doesn't mean that that is the intention of the people working within the system though. As I said earlier, the only way to change the current system (quickly) is to have a complete social upheaval and right now that is not viable. There is most likely going to be no education revolution that destroys the current system and replaces it with another without a larger social revolution. Our society works on the basis that children are essentially babysat for the first 18 years of their life. There is no place for the majority of them outside of the school system (setting them free at 10 to find apprenticeships like Rambo is suggesting will simply lead to kids roaming the streets all day). So yes it is a static system but it is still capable of accepting incremental change. For better or worse you have to admit that the education system is different than it was 50 years ago. Right? From outlawing corporal punishment to expecting females to complete grade 12 and enter tertiary education is change.

[HarryCallahan]

Who wants an apprentice that can't conjugate a verb or do basic math?

No matter what system we have somebody will need to cook food, sweep floors, and take care of the sick and elderly.

What the fvck has that sh*t got to do with fixing a leaky pipe or changing a single mothers oil? Most people would learn that stuff anyway, because it's a part of human nature to be inquisitive. I learnt how to spell, add and subtract before I even went to school, because human beings are naturally inquisitive and you don't need to be in a specific room in a specific building to learn.

[Go Getter]

What the fvck has that sh*t got to do with fixing a leaky pipe or changing a single mothers oil? Most people would learn that stuff anyway, because it's a part of human nature to be inquisitive. I learnt how to spell, add and subtract before I even went to school, because human beings are naturally inquisitive and you don't need to be in a specific room in a specific building to learn.



Have you done any plumbing before? It's not only about turning wrenches and screw drivers....you need to know how to calculate area, use chemicals/polymers, and how to use power tools.

School is a necessity in this society....even with people being forced to go our citizens are plumb dumb. I don't see how society gets better without it....ppl are ****ing lazy and aren't motivated to learn anymore.

[HarryCallahan]

Have you done any plumbing before? It's not only about turning wrenches and screw drivers....you need to know how to calculate area, use chemicals/polymers, and how to use power tools.

School is a necessity in this society....even with people being forced to go our citizens are plumb dumb. I don't see how society gets better without it....ppl are ****ing lazy and aren't motivated to learn anymore.

Basic calculation and use of power tools, yeah you sure need to spend 40 hours a week for 13 years locked in a room with 30 kids and one disinterested adult to do that....

Have you considered that forcing people to go and claiming it is a necessity are some of the reasons why people are dumb? We are all Pavlov's dog's making someone miserable (by sending them to be locked in a room with 30 kids and one disinterested adult for 40 hours a week) is perhaps a disincentive to learn. Teaches kids to associate learning with misery so it's not something they seek out, and with schools working on a curriculum based system everyone ends up with the same basic level of knowledge and no one seeks out anything else because they associate learning with misery.