Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Colin Michael on February 24, 2009, 07:26:00 PM
-
It was mentioned earlier so I thought: hey, why not?
What are the views of the boards regarding education, both in theory and for any practical reformation of our education system?
For me, I believe that (in theory) education is best done by intense competition. Very ridiculously hard work, no grace and no mercy. Lectures are given on terms that accomodates the good students and poor students must make up their slack on their own time. Socratic method is used by the teacher to ask questions over the reading; questions requiring deduction and application rather than content (which is assumed to be already known by the student).
As for reformation of the current education system, most of the work currently done in undergraduate college should be moved to highschool.
I'm also a big fan of the trivium/quadrivium.
-
Very ridiculously hard work, no grace and no mercy. Lectures are given on terms that accommodates the good students and poor students must make up their slack on their own time.
More than one teaching method so that understanding is grasped on more levels as well as by more students. What you propose is basically discrimination against students who don't learn well through auditory means. On average, that means most boys would be left to fend for themselves because, according to your system, they have to "make up the slack on their own." Way to go, you just graduated a class of girls and failed a class of boys.
-
Very ridiculously hard work, no grace and no mercy. Lectures are given on terms that accommodates the good students and poor students must make up their slack on their own time.
More than one teaching method so that understanding is grasped on more levels as well as by more students. What you propose is basically discrimination against students who don't learn well through auditory means. On average, that means most boys would be left to fend for themselves because, according to your system, they have to "make up the slack on their own." Way to go, you just graduated a class of girls and failed a class of boys.
Wouldn't you say that accomodating learning styles limits the people who learn that way to that style? People should learn to learn in uncomfortable ways too.
In regards to my theory of education, they would be forced to learn in a way not comfortable to them, thus making them smarter. Also, there is obviously reading in textbooks as well so it's just as hard for the auditory learners. And yes, it is survival of the fittest (and although I may be sexist, I'm not that sexist).
-
And yes, it is survival of the fittest.
LOL, nearly every educational theorist would eat you for that.
Wouldn't you say that accommodating learning styles limits the people who learn that way to that style? People should learn to learn in uncomfortable ways too.
No teaching through multiple learning styles doesn't hinder at all, in fact it does exactly what you claim to want, gets students to learn through methods that aren't the easiest for them. My teaching through more methods you give each student a greater ability to succeed while also "forcing" them to learn through methods that aren't their personal ideal.
-
And yes, it is survival of the fittest.
LOL, nearly every educational theorist would eat you for that.
Aren't they all Darwinist anyways?
-
No.
I will say, learning styles and teaching styles are of minor importance in the event that a student has ample guidance. If there is a 1:1 student-teacher ratio then, it isn't going to matter what style is used, the student will grasp the material because they have focused teaching and guidance. The true secret to education is being able to give attention to those students who need it without hindering those students who don't. Our current educational system has not been able to do this so far. That's why I think homeschooling is such a good option.
-
You should have known I would comment on this one Colin....it's what I live and breathe....Your comments are dangerously close to prejudiced given what we know about the achievement gap. Competition is healthy yes, but only if the resources are equal and everyone gets a fair playing field. Which would mean that family background, community, environment, quality of staff, adequate school materials all have to be the same...Also, what do you do with a society of students who cannot achieve this "higher level" thinking of which you propose? Not even graduate schools are as mentally intense as you speak. I would argue more for pragmatism, simple display of knowledge is useless...So, in summary, your views are very elitist and I would argue never applicable in real society, much like Socrates....
-
You should have known I would comment on this one Colin....it's what I live and breathe....Your comments are dangerously close to prejudiced given what we know about the achievement gap. Competition is healthy yes, but only if the resources are equal and everyone gets a fair playing field. Which would mean that family background, community, environment, quality of staff, adequate school materials all have to be the same...Also, what do you do with a society of students who cannot achieve this "higher level" thinking of which you propose? Not even graduate schools are as mentally intense as you speak. I would argue more for pragmatism, simple display of knowledge is useless...So, in summary, your views are very elitist and I would argue never applicable in real society, much like Socrates....
I'd be solved by privatising education and creating vocational schools for the masses. Look at German education if you want to see an example of how bad our education system is (and they also have lesser vocational schools for the unintellegent). When I was in Uganda teaching was impossible; the level of math the middle school students were taking was some kind of trigonometry unfamiliar to all of us.
Eqalitarianism is fail. My grandpa came overseas from Russia during the depression and nobody gave him an "equal playing field". His son (my father) went to Seaton Hall, graduated in three years on top of his class, and went from being in a family of lower middle class blue collar workers to upper class in a matter of ten years. His brother did the same.
As for the non-intellectual elites, we need people to do the lower jobs in society. Why should we give the unintellegent masses jobs as CEOs? These increases in education are nothing compared to Japanese or German schools.
-
vocational schools work for the masses when the society needs a ton of vocational opportunities, which we don't. We are slowly moving more and more from the blue-collar opportunities, manufacturing is being out-sourced time and time again. Students will need some form of post-secondary education in order to survive. As a first-generation college graduate, soon to be Master's graduate, and shortly PHD student I understand your issues with equivalence schooling. However, given the situation we are in, we have little choice. What has the Japanese truly gained from their methods of instruction...besides reinforcing their possible feudal society?
-
vocational schools work for the masses when the society needs a ton of vocational opportunities, which we don't. We are slowly moving more and more from the blue-collar opportunities, manufacturing is being out-sourced time and time again. Students will need some form of post-secondary education in order to survive. As a first-generation college graduate, soon to be Master's graduate, and shortly PHD student I understand your issues with equivalence schooling. However, given the situation we are in, we have little choice. What has the Japanese truly gained from their methods of instruction...besides reinforcing their possible feudal society?
Well, as you said, reinforcing their possible feudal society, as well as becoming the second largest economy in the world, and creating all of the little things that make our life easier, to name a few.
Germany was just surpassed by China, now being the fourth largest economy in the world.
If blue-collar opportunities disappear, the need for harder education will be even more important.
-
what your saying is that school needs to be 100% book learning and zero hands on and no homeschool????!!!!!!
-
what your saying is that school needs to be 100% book learning and zero hands on and no homeschool????!!!!!!
That would be jumping to conclusions indeed.
-
i'm a weird kid some say. :) ;)
-
Who else here doesn't like the idea of of homeschooling?
-
you don't like it?
-
Who else here doesn't like the idea of of homeschooling?
I think it has the potential to reinforce a single point of view rather than a variety, and to isolate a student from diverse interpersonal interaction. But then again, I don't speak from experience.
-
I'm a fan of self education and homeschooling (if the parents are parents of character).
-
Who else here doesn't like the idea of of homeschooling?
I think it has the potential to reinforce a single point of view rather than a variety, and to isolate a student from diverse interpersonal interaction. But then again, I don't speak from experience.
As an educator, I would agree with this. I have no first hand experience, but I have seen several friends who were homeschooled face various challenges due to the often single minded approach to their education and their isolation from other peers. There is a lot of social education that is done in schools that is Good.
I know all the arguments for Homeschooling and I would agree that, on a case by case basis, some public schools are failed institutions. I would also agree that, given the current social climate and societal perceptions, Public schools are playing with the deck stacked against them. Often communities fail to support their school. Parents often dont care about their childs education until there child is experiencing a problem. Even teachers who want to enforce discipline and order are not supported by administrations who kow-tow to parents who are more concerend about looking bad than that their child is actually successful.
That being said, runnign to the other extreme and isolating students in homeschooling can be just as dangerous in a different way. I know that some school districts are so dangerous that homeschooling is the only way to keep their child safe. But just as often I see parents keeping their kids out of public school because they dont want their child to hear about evolution and feed them a steady diet of straight up creationism. This does nothing to prepare them for the real world.
I like private schools but I dont like the fact that they are pricey and they are open only to those who can afford them. If only the rich can afford a good education then soon a class tiered society will evolve. (or will continue to evolve since it is apparent that a class society exists to a certain extent already).
I dont know what the answer is. I like public school because it is available to everyone, but I dont like the rules that public school operates in.
-
Demolish public school.
If there is a need for education, free-market will provide affordable schools to the poor.
-
Really Colin? LOL
-
Completely serious. America is one of the only nations left with free public school and we're the least educated (besides Poland, that is :P).
-
I'll be the first to criticize the public schools but I surely do not think we should demolish them. Besides, we pay for them through our taxes. If all of a sudden we made everyone pay for learning at the preliminary and secondary level we'd have a huge rise in uneducated people because there would be so many who couldn't afford it. Without an education you can't get a job and without a job you eventually get forced into poverty. We should be trying to keep people out of poverty, not push them into it.
-
I'll be the first to criticize the public schools but I surely do not think we should demolish them. Besides, we pay for them through our taxes. If all of a sudden we made everyone pay for learning at the preliminary and secondary level we'd have a huge rise in uneducated people because there would be so many who couldn't afford it. Without an education you can't get a job and without a job you eventually get forced into poverty. We should be trying to keep people out of poverty, not push them into it.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, in case you didn't know. Government is not the solution for our problems.
-
I agree. But I don't think demoloshing all public schools is good either. :)
-
I had a huge argument here before on this subject, and I actually have to agree with Colin on this point. If the concepts of Capitolism and free competition were taken to the ideal extremity, then we would have no public schools in the first place. Let us face it! The government just cannot compete with the private sector when the will and the means are already inherent in the private sector. I have two different solutions to the problem of public schools:
Ideal solution:
Let us just get rid of public schools! We simply don't need them! On the financial side of things, we could afford to endorse the private sector if we were not paying for stupid legislation like the "Free-Lunch Program," and if we were not paying so heavily for public schools with our tax dollars. To argue that people can not afford Private/Home Schools becomes a non-argument when the funding of public schools is torn out of your tax payments. That money goes right into your pocket, and you can spend it on your own children instead of being forced to pay for someone else's child. As for the social life of home scoolers, I will admit that many home schooled students do not have much of a social life, but not only is this not a big deal, it too is a non argument for two reasons. First, the number of unsocialized home schooled students is overestimated and blown way out of proportion. Many home schooled students hold co-ops, and get togethers with other home schooled students. This socialization of home schooling is on the rise, which leads to my second point. If public schools were abolished, then there would be a lot more home schoolers who could socialize with other home schoolers. By abolishing public schools, you would be remedying this problem.
Of course, everything you just read will probably never happen as long as there is a huge lobbyist group that opposes us with large wads of cash that should rightfully be invested in the private sector.
Pragmatic solution:
With reality as our target, we must look at our views of capitolism and see if we can find a pragmatic way to chip away at the stagnant pool of anti-capitolism. If our goal is to introduce capitolism, then states should adopt the tax credit system, or voucher system. This would allow parents to withdraw their tax funding of the public schools, and invest that money in the private sector. The problem that we have right now is that parents who wish to pay for educational alternatives are forced to pay not only for their children, but for the children of other parents. This is simply unfair. If parents had more of a tax incentive to choose alternative education, the private sector would get a huge boost, and this would do one of two things. It would either introduce capitolism into the educational system and force the state-funded sector to compete, or it would make the state-funded sector become obsolete and inferior. In either case, we would win, and the rights of the people will have won out in the end.
:) For those of you who didn't read everything I just said, I will say this: "I have to agree with Colin wholeheartedly."
~The Spy
-
Romantic Solution
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi261.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii46%2Ffast0811%2Fv-for-vendetta.jpg&hash=10cc2db25e8ec297de5503805d879951b12ad5bb)
-
Yeah, the world would be better if we all behaved the way we saw some guys act in a movie.
Reminds me of the people who said Fight Club changed their life.
-
Yeah, the world would be better if we all behaved the way we saw some guys act in a movie.
Reminds me of the people who said Fight Club changed their life.
Movies just provide an easy metaphor for insurrection.
-
It wasn't insurrection...it was a man's glorified plan of revenge.
As for education, like Spy, I am unhappy paying for others education especially when a lot of them don't want to be there for a variety of reasons (Brad/technoethicist mentioned several reasons). However, I don't think doing away with the public school system is the right idea for a couple of reasons. 1. it will continue to feed the mentality of: the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. 2. The public school system is intertwined with other aspects of American life (Sports, music, politics, economy, etc.). To destroy the system in one fell swoop, could bring down the whole house of cards. Now a gradual replacement of working ideas with ones that don't work is what I'm for. Look at positive teaching styles 20 years ago (that way you've seen their fruits mature either for the good or bad) and try to mimic or build on those. You can't just take out an integral part of our system and look at everybody and say, "fend for yourselves, may the best man/woman succeed."
-
Demolish public school.
If there is a need for education, free-market will provide affordable schools to the poor.
You class-ist Bourguoise!
The problem with "free-market" education is that only the rich will be educated and we will eventually revert to a highly structured class society where $$ determines how smart you get to be. I may not like public school but I like the idea and I think that public education has done wonders for our society creating a highly skilled labor force.
-
The teaching style we were in was the same of that of the 1970s-just recently. The more "what works" approach is similar to the pragmatists of Dewey and others back in the late 19th century to around 1940s. Imagine, 100 years ago they wanted everyone to be able to access college, and then found out students did not want to accept lower level labor and thus businesses started arguing for more "relevant" electives....Education is nothing more than a vicious cycle in which we try to teach students the rules so they can achieve their dream job. Unfortunately, that cycle affects people differently depending on available resources.
-
I think it is quite apparent that education is not a one-size-fits-all pair of pants. The public schools must act as such because of it's goal. So it's loose and dropping to the ankles for some and riding up the cracks of others. However, for a lot of people it fits well enough.
I do like how our country gives the opportunity to all, and allow each person to make their personal education as much or as little as they can. I could have done better, but my education was what I put into it.
-
I do like how our country gives the opportunity to all, and allow each person to make their personal education as much or as little as they can. I could have done better, but my education was what I put into it.
I agree and I woudl go further to say that for many people, their education is what they put into it...but some dont want to put anything into it.
I agree that it is very frustrating paying for peoples education when many of them dont seem to want it. In some schools of educational thought their is this belief that any teacher, if they try hard enough, can motivate any student. ANd if they cant motivate any student then they are a poor teacher.
But I take issue with that. I believe it is true..up to a point. at some point the student has to want to learn. If I got to run things, I would keep public education the same (except I would fund it off of state sales taxes and not property taxes to keep the disparities between local schools become problematic) but I would also run a paralell track of work/study/vocational school. I would let all students choose their own personalized track but if they become behavioral problems in the general school body, they get placed in a work/study group that keeps them off the streets and enforces rules and discipline in a "boot camp" setting. Real hard cases can be assigned to an actual boot camp setting to keep them from falling into destructive lifestyle choices such as drugs/gangs/truancy etc.
Would this cost? yes, very much so. But those who want education would get it in spades because only earnest and willing students would be left on the main campuses, and those who are troublemakers would find themselves in a more closely supervised and structured situation (which is probably what they need anyway) and in that program they would find a basic education and the value of hard work.
-
So it's loose and dropping to the ankles for some and riding up the cracks of others.
Fact: When Prof sees the above he will quote it. Fact.
-
You class-ist Bourguoise!
Proud of it.
I think Israel provides a good model of education. When you were of the age of learning, you pursued academic interests. If you didn't show the capacity to be taken on as a disciple by a rabbi, you went to vocational school (via apprenticeship).
We need to separate the intellectual elites from the workers; that kind of oligarchy works as long as its based of intellectual merit rather than heritage.
-
you guys are biased agenst homeshcool i HATE public shcool it is 100% agsent the lord and itteaches lies and its crap!
-
you guys are biased agenst homeshcool i HATE public shcool it is 100% agsent the lord and itteaches lies and its crap!
That is a biased statement.
Public school is not "100% against the Lord", it just doesn't support Christian beliefs. Many Christians go to Public Schools, there is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't teach "lies", necessarily, but it teaches other beliefs of how the world began. (Mainly Evolution)
I do agree that you can't learn as much there, though. Just glancing at my cousin's Public school homework makes me laugh at how simple it is.
-
We need to separate the intellectual elites from the workers; that kind of oligarchy works as long as its based of intellectual merit rather than heritage.
Therein lies the dilemma. Our country has a long history of empahsizing the latter which leads to lost potential. I wish I could say that we have learned from the past, but I still work with teachers who discriminate because of heritage and race.
I currently teach in a school that is 90% Hispanic. I have several students who show exceptional potential, comparable to students I had in a gifted-only magnet school in Virginia Beach. When the possibility of an AP Calculus class was mentioned in a department meeting, I thought it was a great idea. However, the other teachers felt that our students couldn't handle that level of Math and that we should steer them to the simpler classes since they would only be "hotel workers" anyway.
-
You class-ist Bourguoise!
Proud of it.
I think Israel provides a good model of education. When you were of the age of learning, you pursued academic interests. If you didn't show the capacity to be taken on as a disciple by a rabbi, you went to vocational school (via apprenticeship).
We need to separate the intellectual elites from the workers; that kind of oligarchy works as long as its based of intellectual merit rather than heritage.
Oh don't even get me started....Colin, at what age does someone actually know what they want to do with their lives? How often do we change our minds about what we want to do? What is the latest report from colleges about students changing majors, at least 50% change it once, and over 30% 3-4 times? How much so would it be for a student who was placed in vocational work but had the aspirations of college? How often do we see students nosedive freshman and sophomore year and then get serious their junior and senior year of high school? One track schooling is not the solution at all...I am in the middle of a class on educational history from 1800-2000 and we have been discussing these concepts time and time again. Read Left Back by Diane Ravitch for a general overview...You would be saying a very different tune if you were from the other end of the spectrum...namely a minority in a urban setting where your school is falling apart and teachers are forced to make due with what they have to provide you some form of education. I harp this on you, because before I left small town Ohio, I believed like you, that the "Golden Opportunity is there for everyone". Reality, it's not. Schools are not identical, by any stretch of the imagination. Name me one other country that has to deal with as many different socio-economic, political, and cultural factors as the US? Germany has a much lower diversity and separation of classes as does Japan. Comparing internationally based on output alone is not a fair scale at all...
Red, you are entitled to your opinion little brother, but please comment on things that you are more informed about. Not all public school is 100% AGAINST the Lord, although that is how it appears. I felt like you did growing up in high school, and I was from a conservative hometown. Now, looking back, I see that there are many many other topics and matters that need to be handled. Also, be wary of saying public school is full of lies without evidence. I realize you are young and I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I wanted to pass on some advice that others should have passed on to me. Or they probably did and I was too stubborn to listen :P
And regarding the lack of interest in education of some, yes, it will still be there. It has been I'm sure since the concept of education began and probably will be there until the Glorious Appearing. Why? Because of a carnal desire to be lazy. Or perhaps he/she view the education as meaningless and without value. Hence I have tossed around an idea that every student from Kindergarten to High School would participate in one project of their own, something they enjoy, appropriate to grade level of course. Logistics, how it works, what teachers do what with the students, standards, etc, are still rummaging through my brain. But my argument is that as a society and what has been passed down to students today is that book learning is boring, find snippets of something someone said on the Internet, cite the source, and call it understanding the concept. Thus, I am very very wary about the current multimedia infrastructure plan President Obama is enacting to have every school have wireless internet....
-
We need to separate the intellectual elites from the workers; that kind of oligarchy works as long as its based of intellectual merit rather than heritage.
Therein lies the dilemma. Our country has a long history of empahsizing the latter which leads to lost potential. I wish I could say that we have learned from the past, but I still work with teachers who discriminate because of heritage and race.
I currently teach in a school that is 90% Hispanic. I have several students who show exceptional potential, comparable to students I had in a gifted-only magnet school in Virginia Beach. When the possibility of an AP Calculus class was mentioned in a department meeting, I thought it was a great idea. However, the other teachers felt that our students couldn't handle that level of Math and that we should steer them to the simpler classes since they would only be "hotel workers" anyway.
That's pretty sad, especially because better highschool education could mean higher test scores for them (and thus more potential for affording college).
-
You class-ist Bourguoise!
Proud of it.
I think Israel provides a good model of education. When you were of the age of learning, you pursued academic interests. If you didn't show the capacity to be taken on as a disciple by a rabbi, you went to vocational school (via apprenticeship).
We need to separate the intellectual elites from the workers; that kind of oligarchy works as long as its based of intellectual merit rather than heritage.
Oh don't even get me started....Colin, at what age does someone actually know what they want to do with their lives? How often do we change our minds about what we want to do? What is the latest report from colleges about students changing majors, at least 50% change it once, and over 30% 3-4 times? How much so would it be for a student who was placed in vocational work but had the aspirations of college? How often do we see students nosedive freshman and sophomore year and then get serious their junior and senior year of high school? One track schooling is not the solution at all...I am in the middle of a class on educational history from 1800-2000 and we have been discussing these concepts time and time again. Read Left Back by Diane Ravitch for a general overview...You would be saying a very different tune if you were from the other end of the spectrum...namely a minority in a urban setting where your school is falling apart and teachers are forced to make due with what they have to provide you some form of education. I harp this on you, because before I left small town Ohio, I believed like you, that the "Golden Opportunity is there for everyone". Reality, it's not. Schools are not identical, by any stretch of the imagination. Name me one other country that has to deal with as many different socio-economic, political, and cultural factors as the US? Germany has a much lower diversity and separation of classes as does Japan. Comparing internationally based on output alone is not a fair scale at all...
Red, you are entitled to your opinion little brother, but please comment on things that you are more informed about. Not all public school is 100% AGAINST the Lord, although that is how it appears. I felt like you did growing up in high school, and I was from a conservative hometown. Now, looking back, I see that there are many many other topics and matters that need to be handled. Also, be wary of saying public school is full of lies without evidence. I realize you are young and I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I wanted to pass on some advice that others should have passed on to me. Or they probably did and I was too stubborn to listen :P
And regarding the lack of interest in education of some, yes, it will still be there. It has been I'm sure since the concept of education began and probably will be there until the Glorious Appearing. Why? Because of a carnal desire to be lazy. Or perhaps he/she view the education as meaningless and without value. Hence I have tossed around an idea that every student from Kindergarten to High School would participate in one project of their own, something they enjoy, appropriate to grade level of course. Logistics, how it works, what teachers do what with the students, standards, etc, are still rummaging through my brain. But my argument is that as a society and what has been passed down to students today is that book learning is boring, find snippets of something someone said on the Internet, cite the source, and call it understanding the concept. Thus, I am very very wary about the current multimedia infrastructure plan President Obama is enacting to have every school have wireless internet....
Education isn't a charity service for wishy-washy students. Also, students are lazy or ADD because they aren't learning anything new. That's why I made poor highschool grades: I had learned it all already when I was homeschooled.
Remember, the goal of education is to progress our society, not to egalitize it. Also, if you want culturally adapt schools privatize it. If you want schools to offer competative education, privatize it. If Uganda can have better schools than us, then I'm sure that the lazy masses sitting on welfare can look through their couches for enough change to get a somewhat decent education.
-
I currently teach in a school that is 90% Hispanic. I have several students who show exceptional potential, comparable to students I had in a gifted-only magnet school in Virginia Beach. When the possibility of an AP Calculus class was mentioned in a department meeting, I thought it was a great idea. However, the other teachers felt that our students couldn't handle that level of Math and that we should steer them to the simpler classes since they would only be "hotel workers" anyway.
Wow. That would make a great plot for a movie. You could call the teacher, "Mr. Escalanza", and the students could go on to pass the AP Calculus exams. You could call the movie, "Stand and Deliver".
...
Wait a minute, that's already been done :)
-
I thought of that movie when I first got here. I, however, would not visit students at home or put my family on hold. I will never be a "Teacher of the Year" candidate because I do not give all of myself to my students. I prefer to be a better than average teacher, and win "Husband of the Year" or "Father of the Year." ;)
-
I currently teach in a school that is 90% Hispanic. I have several students who show exceptional potential, comparable to students I had in a gifted-only magnet school in Virginia Beach. When the possibility of an AP Calculus class was mentioned in a department meeting, I thought it was a great idea. However, the other teachers felt that our students couldn't handle that level of Math and that we should steer them to the simpler classes since they would only be "hotel workers" anyway.
Wow. That would make a great plot for a movie. You could call the teacher, "Mr. Escalanza", and the students could go on to pass the AP Calculus exams. You could call the movie, "Stand and Deliver".
...
Wait a minute, that's already been done :)
Sydney Portier?
-
I live in Canada, where education is different than the USA, but it is still public, and I also tend to think that I got a really good high school (or at least some really good teachers) I think education should allow for students to have more choice than I was given as well as (for high school anyway) allow classes that are more advanced for the students who can handle it. I actually did worse in high school than I could have because I got bored with some things.
I think school should allow slightly differing paces for students so that they are brought up to their potential. There are likely other problems, but that's a big thing I think.
-
I prefer to be a better than average teacher, and win "Husband of the Year" or "Father of the Year." ;)
And I applaud you for it :)
Sydney Portier?
Actually you're getting you inspiring teacher movies confused. Sydney Portier was in "To Sir With Love", which was decent. The movie YMT and I are talking about is "Stand and Deliver", which is excellent, but doesn't have anyone with the star power of SP. The best known actor in "S & D" was a very young Lou Diamond Phillips.
-
I currently teach in a school that is 90% Hispanic. I have several students who show exceptional potential, comparable to students I had in a gifted-only magnet school in Virginia Beach. When the possibility of an AP Calculus class was mentioned in a department meeting, I thought it was a great idea. However, the other teachers felt that our students couldn't handle that level of Math and that we should steer them to the simpler classes since they would only be "hotel workers" anyway.
Wow. That would make a great plot for a movie. You could call the teacher, "Mr. Escalanza", and the students could go on to pass the AP Calculus exams. You could call the movie, "Stand and Deliver".
...
Wait a minute, that's already been done :)
Wow, I was thinking the exact same thing! lol
And dont forget Edward james Olmos as Mr. Escalanza (a.k.a Admiral Bill Adama on the new BSG)
-
The problem with private school (which seems to be gettign advocated by a couple people) or homeschool is that those domain's simply can't offer variety that a publically funded school can, and as someone who attends a private school, we miss out.
-
Free market ideals may work in the economic sector but I dont believ e that education should ever be fully free market based. Free markets always provide an answer to the problem, but the problem is whether it is the right answer to the problem.
Even in economics free market advocates will scream "The Market will fix itself" and they are right. The problem is that the market is a Giant that has no heart and no soul. It is a Titanic force of nature that will grind up the living bones of humans to make its bread. The market will fix itself, but people will die. They always have in a truly open and free market.
I have no reason to believe that the same thing will happen if we totally privatize education. People wont die, but their souls will. When only the rich can afford education then we will be condemning the poor to a second class life and we will be losing the doors on their options.
-
Free market ideals may work in the economic sector but I dont believ e that education should ever be fully free market based. Free markets always provide an answer to the problem, but the problem is whether it is the right answer to the problem.
Even in economics free market advocates will scream "The Market will fix itself" and they are right. The problem is that the market is a Giant that has no heart and no soul. It is a Titanic force of nature that will grind up the living bones of humans to make its bread. The market will fix itself, but people will die. They always have in a truly open and free market.
I have no reason to believe that the same thing will happen if we totally privatize education. People wont die, but their souls will. When only the rich can afford education then we will be condemning the poor to a second class life and we will be losing the doors on their options.
There will always be an upper class and will always be a lower class; anarcho-capitalism makes sure those people are the ones best suited for those jobs.
-
Wow! I need to catch up to speed here!
Post one:
However, I don't think doing away with the public school system is the right idea for a couple of reasons. 1. it will continue to feed the mentality of: the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. 2. The public school system is intertwined with other aspects of American life (Sports, music, politics, economy, etc.). To destroy the system in one fell swoop, could bring down the whole house of cards. Now a gradual replacement of working ideas with ones that don't work is what I'm for.
1. This actually has little negative economic ramifications. If you mean that we should have public schools to serve those who cannot afford education, then I would have to disagree with this. Since we simply don't have a caste system like other countries, there is something called "hard work" that used to mean, in the good old days, the ability to earn your education. If indeed our country is built upon the concept of "Equal Opportunity" as it should be, then people simply won't go down the slippery slope of becoming poorer and poorer by default. People who care to be educated will have the opportunity to get an education. Likewise, it isn't the responsibility of the governemnt to take from those with money to give to those who are poor.
2. See my pragmatic solution that explains the practical transition from the public school to the private sector.
Demolish public school.
If there is a need for education, free-market will provide affordable schools to the poor.
You class-ist Bourguoise!
The problem with "free-market" education is that only the rich will be educated and we will eventually revert to a highly structured class society where $$ determines how smart you get to be. I may not like public school but I like the idea and I think that public education has done wonders for our society creating a highly skilled labor force.
The problem with this way of thinking is that it gives undue credit to our public schools. In all honesty, it is the global economy that has forced us to focus on "high skill labor" because all of our lower skill labor force is overseas. Maybe I am mistaking cause and effect, but I am pretty sure that the public schools are not responsible for what you see today in America's skill level. That seems to be the result of simple "supply and demand" logic. That is the only place where the money is to be made in America!
I do like how our country gives the opportunity to all, and allow each person to make their personal education as much or as little as they can.
To be nitpicky, I would say it does a poor job in providing opportunity to the private sector. ::)
I agree and I woudl go further to say that for many people, their education is what they put into it...but some dont want to put anything into it.
Would this cost? yes, very much so. But those who want education would get it in spades because only earnest and willing students would be left on the main campuses, and those who are troublemakers would find themselves in a more closely supervised and structured situation (which is probably what they need anyway) and in that program they would find a basic education and the value of hard work.
Who should be implementing and paying for this?
-
Part 2:
The problem with private school (which seems to be gettign advocated by a couple people) or homeschool is that those domain's simply can't offer variety that a publically funded school can, and as someone who attends a private school, we miss out.
On the contrary! In Your Math Teacher's words, the one-size fits-all pants is an absolute mistake. To try to teach anyone and everyone the same things the same way is discouraging variety in education. The private sector would do a very good job of providing variety from school to school, and this would encourage occupational "specializations" to be taylored perfectly so that it doesn't ride up the crack or hang about the ankles too loosely.
Free market ideals may work in the economic sector but I dont believ e that education should ever be fully free market based. Free markets always provide an answer to the problem, but the problem is whether it is the right answer to the problem.
Even in economics free market advocates will scream "The Market will fix itself" and they are right. The problem is that the market is a Giant that has no heart and no soul. It is a Titanic force of nature that will grind up the living bones of humans to make its bread. The market will fix itself, but people will die. They always have in a truly open and free market.
I have no reason to believe that the same thing will happen if we totally privatize education. People wont die, but their souls will. When only the rich can afford education then we will be condemning the poor to a second class life and we will be losing the doors on their options.
Not only are you ignoring the vast middle class, but you are also neglecting to observe that the poor class will only get larger when there are economic incentives for being poor. Furthermore, I would think that a socialized education system would be more of a detriment to people's souls. The environments generated in the public schools are not full of flowers and unicorns. People's dreams are shattered when they are held back by the standards imposed upon them by the government. However, a private school system would be more likely to accomodate for the needs of those who would otherwise have their souls crushed.
I also know I will sound heartless when I say this, but it is not the responsibility of those with money to be forced to give to those with none. The larger the safety net becomes, the more likely people are to fall right into it. If there is a cusion for the poverty class, then more people will sit back and enjoy their "poverty" as the rich pay for their laziness.
-
I don't really want to have this whole discussion again, after having a good one that was very similar with The Spy. But the whole division of class thing does bring up one very important point.
The IDEA of public education is important for our country. In the past when countries have had rich and poor, the poor have eventually risen up and overthrown the rich. Most of the time this has been in bloody revolutions (ie. French and Russian). This hasn't happened here in America, and doesn't appear likely to ever happen. I think part of the reason why is that people FEEL like they have more control over their lives.
They THINK that they actually get to pick their leaders, which makes them not feel like they need to revolt over power. They THINK that they could be rich, or their kids could be rich, if they only got a good enough job, which makes them not feel like they need to revolt over wealth. They BELIEVE that education is the key to getting a good job, and education is free for everyone, which makes them not feel like they need to revolt over opportunities.
If there was no public education, then there would be a large number of people who would feel disenfranchised with the country, and they would be susceptible to violent ravings of a charismatic leader (particularly since they would also be less educated). This is a recipe for disaster.
-
I also know I will sound heartless when I say this, but it is not the responsibility of those with money to be forced to give to those with none. The larger the safety net becomes, the more likely people are to fall right into it. If there is a cusion for the poverty class, then more people will sit back and enjoy their "poverty" as the rich pay for their laziness.
How do you come to terms with this biblically? We are called to be good stewards of our resources. There are stories like Boaz and Ruth, and contrary to belief many who are using federal programs are single mothers who are generally minorities who have been placed in their situations, or currently its those who did have jobs and now have nothing. Sadly though, it is this mindset that there are a huge amount of people sitting around doing nothing getting paid enough to survive that has been portrayed by the media and others to make ourselves feel righteous anger and injustice, when that's often not the case at all....
-
I think Israel provides a good model of education. When you were of the age of learning, you pursued academic interests. If you didn't show the capacity to be taken on as a disciple by a rabbi, you went to vocational school (via apprenticeship).
I had thought it was mentioned somewhere here in this thread already, but America's status as a production nation has been declining for years. Production is outsourced and we are moving into a service-oriented economic model. There wouldn't be nearly enough jobs in the country to support all the rabble that you are deliberately excluding from any opportunity for self-improvement.
We need to separate the intellectual elites from the workers; that kind of oligarchy works as long as its based of intellectual merit rather than heritage.
Now I KNOW we've had this conversation before. What surprises me is you're still not acknowledging how stupid some smart people can be.
How do you come to terms with this biblically? We are called to be good stewards of our resources.
He said "forced". Stewardship is a deliberate act of self-discipline.
Sadly though, it is this mindset that there are a huge amount of people sitting around doing nothing getting paid enough to survive that has been portrayed by the media and others to make ourselves feel righteous anger and injustice, when that's often not the case at all....
I have to say I don't see the media running with welfare momma stories. If anything, I think the media and many of its consumers would be shocked at some of the stories I have heard from someone working with these very people in Philadelphia's system.
-
Now I KNOW we've had this conversation before. What surprises me is you're still not acknowledging how stupid some smart people can be.
I'm speaking of people of intellect and will; not just "well read" sophists.
I had thought it was mentioned somewhere here in this thread already, but America's status as a production nation has been declining for years. Production is outsourced and we are moving into a service-oriented economic model. There wouldn't be nearly enough jobs in the country to support all the rabble that you are deliberately excluding from any opportunity for self-improvement.
The difference between proletariats and "providers of service" isn't really important. Anarcho-capitalism, just by the way it works, will have the thinkers with good ideas as bourgeousie and those who are better suited for working out those ideas as proletariats.
The ivory tower builds the society, the proletariat maintains it. There-in, splitting education between academia and vocational interests will allow both societies to progress (as the ivory tower will be teaching the vocational schools, thus progressing them).
People will not be "forced" by the state into either camp; their progress in each field will be proportional to their will towards it and their means to accomplish it. Competative market will provide both forms of education at affordable levels (no one is going to open a school to accomodate educational needs in Harlem that no-one in Harlem can afford).
-
The problem with private school (which seems to be gettign advocated by a couple people) or homeschool is that those domain's simply can't offer variety that a publically funded school can, and as someone who attends a private school, we miss out.
Everybody has a right to their own opinion, homeschooling works for me, but a more social-based schooling system might work better for other people (considering that it isnt public school, since it does teach unlearned doctrines and wrong beliefs.) Of course, it depends on the system. Private schools can be just as bad if not worse, than that of an average public school. While homeschooling might bias the person's beliefs, who's to stop public school from being biased?
you guys are biased agenst homeshcool i HATE public shcool it is 100% agsent the lord and itteaches lies and its crap!
While I agree that public school does not present an appropriate Christian atmosphere, could you please stop shouting?
-
I'm speaking of people of intellect and will; not just "well read" sophists.
My response is completely unaffected by this distinction.
The difference between proletariats and "providers of service" isn't really important.
Yeah, it pretty much is. By default, it requires more intellect to code a website than it does to stand on a production line and drive rivets.
There-in, splitting education between academia and vocational interests will allow both societies to progress (as the ivory tower will be teaching the vocational schools, thus progressing them).
We already have specialized schools in the current system, so I see no need to usurp the entire system only to create what already exists.
Competative market will provide both forms of education at affordable levels (no one is going to open a school to accomodate educational needs in Harlem that no-one in Harlem can afford).
But the problem is that education costs money. This is akin to saying that sniper training can be accomplished at an equal level using high-grade military resources, and a cap gun. An unfettered free-market system won't abide a model that loses money and can't produce the same results outside a certain range of reasonable funding.
You use Israel as your example but the inconvenient truth is that there was a higher power in place to manage the system. But I don't see anarcho-capitalism as compatible with a theocracy. Without God Himself at the head, or an authoritarian human construct to maintain the system, it's a philosophy that I see as wholly unsustainable and one that will in fact be systemically unaccommodating to the populace.
-
I think I can see your point of view.
Would you be in favour of splitting pre-college public education into two forms: liberal arts and vocational? If done in the current model, one could easily provide both in the current establishment and liberal arts minded people would be better prepared for progressing the culture of our society while the workforce would be better prepared for maintaining our society.
Thinkers need to be taught how to think by the education system; doers need to know the information required for them to do. Both types are necessary for society.
Those adept for natural sciences and such will learn nothing from a philosophy or logic course while those adept for the liberal arts will gain nothing from a biology or physics course.
Basically, education does nothing to account for the large percentage of "free-thinkers", who are commonly labeled with ADD.
-
Since I think the world is divided much more finely than thinkers and doers, I can't really fit a square peg into a round hole.
And I hope your comment about ADHD refers to misdiagnosis, and not the possible alternate interpretation - that you think ADHD is something slapped on people who don't actually have any mental disorders.
-
Thinkers need to be taught how to think by the education system; doers need to know the information required for them to do. Both types are necessary for society.
Those adept for natural sciences and such will learn nothing from a philosophy or logic course while those adept for the liberal arts will gain nothing from a biology or physics course.
Basically, education does nothing to account for the large percentage of "free-thinkers", who are commonly labeled with ADD.
You honestly think that natural sciences do not need philosophy or logic? Where are they going to learn about the ethics of stem-cell research or cloning or the like? And what about the other side...liberal arts have much to gain from a basic understanding of how the world works. Again, I allude to the fact that students change their minds multiple times about what they want to do. Hence why a specialized education, ESPECIALLY one separated by "spheres of influence or what have you" is not going to be a good move in the long run....
-
Thinkers need to be taught how to think by the education system; doers need to know the information required for them to do. Both types are necessary for society.
Those adept for natural sciences and such will learn nothing from a philosophy or logic course while those adept for the liberal arts will gain nothing from a biology or physics course.
Basically, education does nothing to account for the large percentage of "free-thinkers", who are commonly labeled with ADD.
You honestly think that natural sciences do not need philosophy or logic? Where are they going to learn about the ethics of stem-cell research or cloning or the like? And what about the other side...liberal arts have much to gain from a basic understanding of how the world works. Again, I allude to the fact that students change their minds multiple times about what they want to do. Hence why a specialized education, ESPECIALLY one separated by "spheres of influence or what have you" is not going to be a good move in the long run....
Are you suggesting that our current model of education works better?
-
If you want to talk about degrees of effectiveness, he probably does. He doesn't seem to be in any hurry to have an excluded middle.
-
If you want to talk about degrees of effectiveness, he probably does. He doesn't seem to be in any hurry to have an excluded middle.
Well, is there a compromise to be reached between the two?
I mean, clearly, if the German and Japanese schools are beating ours, they're either being better educated or they're the master races.
-
If you want to talk about degrees of effectiveness, he probably does. He doesn't seem to be in any hurry to have an excluded middle.
Well, is there a compromise to be reached between the two?
I mean, clearly, if the German and Japanese schools are beating ours, they're either being better educated or they're the master races.
Or American schools teach to tests (see SAT, various state tests used for funding gauges) and students don't actually learn.
-
If you want to talk about degrees of effectiveness, he probably does. He doesn't seem to be in any hurry to have an excluded middle.
Well, is there a compromise to be reached between the two?
I mean, clearly, if the German and Japanese schools are beating ours, they're either being better educated or they're the master races.
Or American schools teach to tests (see SAT, various state tests used for funding gauges) and students don't actually learn.
Well, that's failing at education too.
-
So right now the two competing ideas in this thread are multi-faceted education (one size fits all) vs focused education (everybody is different and everybody should have different schooling options)? Can we have both?
-
We already have both. Some people go on to college for more book learnin'. Others go to technical schools to learn how to do stuff. Others just get jobs.
I've known people who have gone on to college and earned degrees in things that qualified them for basically nothing except going on to get a Masters degree. I've known people who have gotten a job at a convenient store right after high school, and stayed there. I've known people who have gone to cooking schools, hairdressing schools, computer certification schools, and other "vocational" type schools. All of these are available now :)
-
We already have both. Some people go on to college for more book learnin'. Others go to technical schools to learn how to do stuff. Others just get jobs.
I've known people who have gone on to college and earned degrees in things that qualified them for basically nothing except going on to get a Masters degree. I've known people who have gotten a job at a convenient store right after high school, and stayed there. I've known people who have gone to cooking schools, hairdressing schools, computer certification schools, and other "vocational" type schools. All of these are available now :)
But the problem is, these schools don't start until 18 and should be started much sooner.
-
But the problem is, these schools don't start until 18 and should be started much sooner.
This I would agree with. I would like students to have the option to gaina general education that is balanced in all areas, but as they approach jr.high school and Sr. high school they are able to focus on the skills they like or preffer. I think the magnet school approach is a step in the right direction here. If someone knows they want to be a doctor after school, then I think they should be able to either go to a school that helps them focus on those skills or take classes in their school that will help prepare them for that skill.
I say this also knowing that many students will still not know what they want to do after HS and will therefore need a "general education" school just like what we have now.
-
There are also vocational high schools.
-
There are also vocational high schools.
To further prove how right Schaef is: the schools around here (mostly in PA) lets you split class time with a local vocational school starting when you're around 16. (mostly Juniors and a few sophmores) It seems to be a great success around here.
-
But the problem is, these schools don't start until 18 and should be started much sooner.
This I would agree with. I would like students to have the option to gaina general education that is balanced in all areas, but as they approach jr.high school and Sr. high school they are able to focus on the skills they like or preffer. I think the magnet school approach is a step in the right direction here. If someone knows they want to be a doctor after school, then I think they should be able to either go to a school that helps them focus on those skills or take classes in their school that will help prepare them for that skill.
I say this also knowing that many students will still not know what they want to do after HS and will therefore need a "general education" school just like what we have now.
I mean, the stuff learned in undergraduate college could easily be copy/pasted into highschool. Teaching kids more difficult things when they're younger makes them smarter. Also, if we move undergraduate down a step (or even just move down college general education), we will progress the entire chain of education proportionally.
There are some things that students learn senior year of high school or freshman/sophmore year of highschool that are both basic concepts and essential concepts for good intellectual development. High School freshmen and sophmores most definitely will benefit from taking logic courses, rhetoric courses, and grammer courses (for these things matter in any job far more than natural sciences, for they teach you to think rather than to memorise). Also, learning at least basic latin greatly helps both ones grammer and capacity for understanding romance languages (although this could very well be done in middle school; my brother and I had no problem with it then).
As for mathematics and natural sciences, students should definitely possess basic knowledge of them; however, the goal of institutions currently is to make kids pass tests rather than make them brilliant. Memorising facts doesn't build the logical side of one's mind.
-
Those are arguments for increasing standards and teaching learning rather than rote. I don't see an argument for annihilating the system wholesale and throwing the kids into the deep end of the pool.
-
I mean, the stuff learned in undergraduate college could easily be copy/pasted into highschool. Teaching kids more difficult things when they're younger makes them smarter. Also, if we move undergraduate down a step (or even just move down college general education), we will progress the entire chain of education proportionally.
There are some things that students learn senior year of high school or freshman/sophmore year of highschool that are both basic concepts and essential concepts for good intellectual development. High School freshmen and sophmores most definitely will benefit from taking logic courses, rhetoric courses, and grammer courses (for these things matter in any job far more than natural sciences, for they teach you to think rather than to memorise). Also, learning at least basic latin greatly helps both ones grammer and capacity for understanding romance languages (although this could very well be done in middle school; my brother and I had no problem with it then).
As for mathematics and natural sciences, students should definitely possess basic knowledge of them; however, the goal of institutions currently is to make kids pass tests rather than make them brilliant. Memorising facts doesn't build the logical side of one's mind.
Here's the problem. there are programs that happen like this (In Ohio it's called Seniors to sophomores, where students can start taking college classes their junior year. However as I discovered with my students, it's not for everyone. I have a hard time telling a student that a D in a college class is better than a B in their high school class. To me it means they are not ready and need two more years to prepare....just one example
-
I'm part of a Washington State program called Running Start. Basically, I take classes at the community college in place of the classes I could take at high school. I'll have an Associate in Arts degree when I graduate in June. I think things like this, where students become consumers of educational goods, are great. I'm opposed to tracking, where students at some point are put in a certain career track at an early age that takes their education down a completely different path than others.
-
Those are arguments for increasing standards and teaching learning rather than rote. I don't see an argument for annihilating the system wholesale and throwing the kids into the deep end of the pool.
I do since most kids are more teachable when their small. Don't believe me? Try to teach a 67-year old man the alphabet.
-
Those are arguments for increasing standards and teaching learning rather than rote. I don't see an argument for annihilating the system wholesale and throwing the kids into the deep end of the pool.
I do since most kids are more teachable when their small. Don't believe me? Try to teach a 67-year old man the alphabet.
My friend Jael is brillant because her father would read her Kant and Hegel when she was like 8.
One of my fellow philosophy students and I are working on an essay on educational theory right now (but in a very different light than the theories I've presented so far). Basically, it will be a more practical version of Xavier's School for Gifted Children; selecting promising orphans at a young age and raising them in a school/commune structured to produce intellectual elites (although a great deal of time will be spent in educating them on terms of character and faith). Since we're both Catholics-awaiting-confirmation we'll probably use Catholicism is a paradigm.
Yeah, a Catholic school for mutants.
-
What orphans need most is love, not intellectual training. If your school does not focus on providing a nurturing environment, and instead operates on a "survival of the fittest" mentality like you have talked about in this thread, then it will be doomed to failure. And even your "successes" will be intellectual giants and yet moral smurfs.
-
Who says it won't be nurturing?
-
What orphans need most is love, not intellectual training. If your school does not focus on providing a nurturing environment, and instead operates on a "survival of the fittest" mentality like you have talked about in this thread, then it will be doomed to failure. And even your "successes" will be intellectual giants and yet moral smurfs.
I mean, its better to make them into something than to leave them.
-
Yes, but Mark makes a point about making them into something worthwhile.
Yes, the better taught someone is, the better they will do, all other things being equal. But the point behind the protests against this format is that all other things are not equal. The focus is strictly on intellectual training to the apparent exclusion of all else. But Jesus did not teach people on the virtues of mental prowess. You speak of the class system in Israel but it was the ruling caste for whom he reserved his harshest criticisms. Why? Because they had focused all their energies on religious training and elitism until they lost the plot. Paul's big speech is that all of the marvelous things that God gives us are completely worthless if we don't have... logic?
.... love.
-
Yes, but Mark makes a point about making them into something worthwhile.
Yes, the better taught someone is, the better they will do, all other things being equal. But the point behind the protests against this format is that all other things are not equal. The focus is strictly on intellectual training to the apparent exclusion of all else. But Jesus did not teach people on the virtues of mental prowess. You speak of the class system in Israel but it was the ruling caste for whom he reserved his harshest criticisms. Why? Because they had focused all their energies on religious training and elitism until they lost the plot. Paul's big speech is that all of the marvelous things that God gives us are completely worthless if we don't have... logic?
.... love.
Very true. In the end, we won't need Mathamatics, Poetry, etc. Still, in this world, we might as well learn since we don't have much else to do anyway. :P
-
Yes, but Mark makes a point about making them into something worthwhile.
Yes, the better taught someone is, the better they will do, all other things being equal. But the point behind the protests against this format is that all other things are not equal. The focus is strictly on intellectual training to the apparent exclusion of all else. But Jesus did not teach people on the virtues of mental prowess. You speak of the class system in Israel but it was the ruling caste for whom he reserved his harshest criticisms. Why? Because they had focused all their energies on religious training and elitism until they lost the plot. Paul's big speech is that all of the marvelous things that God gives us are completely worthless if we don't have... logic?
.... love.
a great deal of time will be spent in educating them on terms of character and faith
-
Character and Faith is not the same thing as Love.
If I have the faith to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
In addition, you are speaking in theory. I teach at a private school where some of our students could be described as orphans. I am speaking from experience.
-
Character and Faith is not the same thing as Love.
If I have the faith to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
In addition, you are speaking in theory. I teach at a private school where some of our students could be described as orphans. I am speaking from experience.
Well, love is part of a good character.
-
1). I think it's interesting that the elites are the ones who get this specialized character education, making them not only the only persons who CAN achieve in life but also the only ones who can supposedly be good people in the process.
2). I think it's interesting that this form of education proposes even deeper and more radical replacement of standard parenting than the federalized education we currently "enjoy".
-
1). I think it's interesting that the elites are the ones who get this specialized character education, making them not only the only persons who CAN achieve in life but also the only ones who can supposedly be good people in the process.
2). I think it's interesting that this form of education proposes even deeper and more radical replacement of standard parenting than the federalized education we currently "enjoy".
Doesn't society/humanity progress more from the brilliant becoming more brilliant than from the dumb becoming psuedo-brilliant?
-
Why do you guys humor him?
-
Doesn't society/humanity progress more from the brilliant becoming more brilliant than from the dumb becoming psuedo-brilliant?
I can't say I've ever considered society to ever progress along only one attribute, or only from increasing the gap to the top percentage.
-
Doesn't society/humanity progress more from the brilliant becoming more brilliant than from the dumb becoming psuedo-brilliant?
I can't say I've ever considered society to ever progress along only one attribute, or only from increasing the gap to the top percentage.
Think about it this way, excellence encourages (and often requires) excellence. Building a society to benefit the lower tier doesn't progress the tier that is moving forward. Also, the lower tier has no incentive for excellence. Building a competative situation will provide a progressing low power distance, not a large power distance.
-
Why do you guys humor him?
Because he is at the same place as a really good friend of mine, except that my friend was there 10 years ago. I don't want to see Colin end up where my friend is today. I admit that I am somewhat doubtful of the effectiveness of my attempts to speak into Colin's life. However, I'm not willing to simply let him go silently into the night without even trying.
-
Think about it this way, excellence encourages (and often requires) excellence.
Unless it encourages mediocrity from those it does not deem worthy.
Building a society to benefit the lower tier doesn't progress the tier that is moving forward.
The problem, which you seem to continue not to grasp, is that an arbitrary selection is being made about who does and does not belong on what tier based on a single, flawed attribute.
Also, the lower tier has no incentive for excellence.
I would submit that a lower tier which is told it can only be a lower tier and summarily denied the resources you grant the upper tier is what removes the incentive, because there is no goal to achieve in the first place.
And lest continue down this false dichotomy of anarcho-capitalism or absolute communism, let me make it clear that to argue against locking people into a caste society is not the same thing as arguing for egalitarianism. Providing opportunities is not the same thing as deliberately handicapping the exceptional, a la Harrison Bergeron.
-
Here's the thing. I could care less about the lower tier, but I'm not discouraging people from helping them.
I have no interest in denying opportunities to the lower tier (but no interest in helping them either).
By pushing the strong to be stronger, am I in any ways denying the lower tier the right to be strong? Certainly not.
-
How does anarcho-capitalism stack up against scripture? Im not saying Jesus perfers any political theory or educational theory attatched to political ideals, but are their not guidelines established by Christ that might guide us?
(forgive me if this has been brought up over the weekend, I was unavailable to read it)
Is the divine call to care for the orphan, the widow and the alien simply limited to food and shelter or does it extend to other needs as well?
-
I could care less about the lower tier, but I'm not discouraging people from helping them.
Uh, yeah, you pretty much are, by demanding that resources be dedicated exclusively to one class of people.
And the reason you couldn't care less about the lower tier, is because you don't perceive yourself as one of "them".
I have no interest in denying opportunities to the lower tier (but no interest in helping them either).
You're advocating a system of mutual exclusivity. By definition that is the denial of opportunity on the most basic level.
By pushing the strong to be stronger, am I in any ways denying the lower tier the right to be strong? Certainly not.
Certainly you are, by dividing them based on a single arbitrary attribute and having different systems apply to each. A person's intellect is something that is just as much nature as nurture, and yet people of lesser intellect have excelled far beyond less motivated (or more self-serving) people of more raw talent. Under your proposed system those people would be immediately classified as second-class and not even have access to first-class materials based on their shortcomings in one attribute, with no consideration for their excellence in others.
-
Colin, have you read any of Aldous Huxley, eg. Brave New World? I would think through that as well as some of Orwell's pieces (1984 for example), you can see what happens when you caste people into roles purely on intelligence. I guess the next question for you is, is intellect innate? Does it not need a warm and welcoming environment that reinforces ideals? How many students do you hear that come from a constant negative community, poor educational resources, and no positive reinforcement arise as an intellectual elite....not very many...
-
However, I'm not willing to simply let him go silently into the night without even trying.
Personally, I think he's just egging you guys on. He seems to be playing devil's advocate in the literal sense.
Of course, I could be wrong, in which case I would not qualify for any services in his new system.
-
Colin, have you read any of Aldous Huxley, eg. Brave New World? I would think through that as well as some of Orwell's pieces (1984 for example), you can see what happens when you caste people into roles purely on intelligence. I guess the next question for you is, is intellect innate? Does it not need a warm and welcoming environment that reinforces ideals? How many students do you hear that come from a constant negative community, poor educational resources, and no positive reinforcement arise as an intellectual elite....not very many...
Thus, the plan for this educational facility is to create the environment best suited for creating intellectual elites. The facility existing won't prevent anyone from helping the needy and such.
I read Brave New World a long time ago and don't remember the themes of intellectual elitism in there. However, casting people into role based purely on intellegence and/or character is what naturally happens. I mean, affirmative action still exists, but that's not the point.
-
Thus, the plan for this educational facility is to create the environment best suited for creating intellectual elites.
No, your plan as outlined to us was to take those you DEEMED intellectual elites and give them distinct and separate training in order to produce an oligarchy in which they run the show. The separation as described takes place before the educational process, which was specifically promoted as different from the current system in which a baseline education is available to all, and people are free to pursue high-caliber interests of their own accord.
-
Thus, the plan for this educational facility is to create the environment best suited for creating intellectual elites.
No, your plan as outlined to us was to take those you DEEMED intellectual elites and give them distinct and separate training in order to produce an oligarchy in which they run the show. The separation as described takes place before the educational process, which was specifically promoted as different from the current system in which a baseline education is available to all, and people are free to pursue high-caliber interests of their own accord.
Your mixing up two concepts.
The practical senario has two schools, academic and vocational, one is at the liberty of chosing ethier (but if you fail out of the academic, you're pretty much set on vocational).