[2Wycked]

As you may or may not be aware, but I have been undertaking a careful reading of "The Culture Of Narcissism." I have set the book aside to peruse lighter fare, but I returned last night as I watching the eminently boring MNF game.

He has a very intriguing chapter about the degradation of the American educational system.

What should the end goal be for students in a school system? Should the emphasis be on tailoring curriculum to prepare students for the workforce? Should the emphasis be on concrete academic subjects - classic "reading, writing and 'rithmetic?"

Current approaches seem to reinforce class distinctions. Personally, I was labeled very immature and most teachers never saw much potential in me. A few teachers -- mostly over writing, creativity & intelligence -- helped me along. I recall my senior adviser literally laughing in my face about being a good writer -- she told me to never think the thought, as I clearly wasn't cut out to be a good writer.

However, that isn't half the story. I specifically mentioned class distinctions because perceptions of student competence and potential will invariably be caught up in the wealth of the student's family and family's relation to the school. I went to a mindbogglingly small high school - less than 150 in the entire school, so there was no anonymity and your parent's reputation preceded you. I had a good friend who was clearly a genius but was poor and was born to a single mother who clearly was known for being a "good time." Even at sixth grade, the teachers and system had given up on him -- assuming they ever believed in him at all.

Personally, my mother was pretty much hated and that affected my treatment. This isn't to say I was mistreated, but the more "cliquish" teachers (female) maintained their distance. I notice this much more in younger grades. Maybe teachers -- without proper distance -- start to behave like their kids? I don't know, youthful immaturity could rub off on anybody if they are around it too much.

Still, what should the ultimate goals be? As much as I love creative pursuits, I think the emphasis should be on concrete academic subjects.

I don't like how schools have usurped family roles. A point that Lasch repeatedly makes throughout the book is that the family has been dis-empowered and rendered disoriented because of "experts" in media/government. Here, that would be teachers -- and most importantly -- school administrators (not the teachers, but the bureaucracy). I won't talk more about this, because I could make a whole post on it.

Enough for me. What are your thoughts? Properly done, what should our educational system be about or produce as graduates?

[samsamsam]

College education is just a business now. The purpose of education is to support tenured professors, student loan servicers and everyone that sells shit to students. Kids today are not bright enough to make best use of their time in college to be productive. Yes, I know some are, there are always some. There are always those genius kids. But the next tier and the tier after them seem to be weaker.

Just a business now, kids are convinced that getting a degree makes them special, so they buy the story. Not realizing that a degree alone isn't a guarantee for success, especially if it is in some useless major.

Student loans cannot be eliminated through a bk, so they are there until paid. As they should be, sorry to sound like a hard ass, but can you imagine how many more crazy women with useless degrees there would be if college was free? Shiiiiiiiiiiit.

Enough of the ranting. Here are some thoughts about what the educational system should be:
1) Turn out functional, contributing citizens with a rational grasp of their place in society. When I mean place, I don't mean they are stuck in some position and can never grow out of it. But, if they are not a major contributor to society they should grasp that and not act out as if they mattered. Over time, as they learn to contribute more, then they should get the rewards for their efforts. One of my gripes has always been the
"deserving without earning mentality" that some people have. Tuth's recent article brought out tons of these people.

2) As far as post high school - I think we need to really get off this idea that everyone needs to go to college. I like some of the systems where students earn their way into a University experience or a really good vocational/apprenticeship school and come out with solid skills to make a good living.

3) Repeat of above - sort of. Not everyone deserves to go to college - especially the ones who are taking remedial math and English during freshman year because they didn't learn it in high school. Also, a study showed that a decent chunk of college students learn very little. I imagine the ones who are taking remedial classes are in that group.

http://dailyfreepress.com/2011/02/02/stu...two-years/

After two years in college, 45 percent of students showed no significant gains in learning and after four years 36 percent of students showed little change according to the Collegiate Learning Assessment, which based its study off 3,000 student surveys from 29 campuses across the country.

4) Education should teach kids to speak without slang, or at least know when to turn it on and off. If you want to be in a professional environment, people pick up on diction. Just a reality. If you speak like an idiot (doesn't matter how smart you are) you hurt yourself in the long run.

[Arg expert]

"I don't like how schools have usurped family roles. A point that Lasch repeatedly makes throughout the book is that the family has been dis-empowered and rendered disoriented because of "experts" in media/government."

A very communist move, happening in the USA, known as an anti-communist country. Surprising, yes.

But actually, it is the WET DREAM of almost all governments around the World : format the next generation, the children, according to the government's wishes and particular agenda. Kill real diversity. Real diversity comes from the families, not from schools. And real diversity is a danger to the peaceful ruling of the State.

[Barron]

see Cardinal Newman's Idea of a University text, some excerpts here:
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.net/university.html

[SpiderKing]

PROGRAM THE PROPAGANDIST CLASSES.

1.) RELIGIOUS CLERGY
2.) MEDIA EMPLOYEES
3.) WRITERS / AUTHORS
4.) INTELLIGENTSIA

[Thomas the Rhymer]

I reckon the goals of education are:
- learn how to count
- learn how to read
- learn how to speak
Everything else is politics.

[Vendetta]

We should take back the responsibility of educating our children ourselves instead of letting the State do it. You have more vested interest in your child's future than the State does. Instead of sitting them in front of a television, computer game or giving them a tablet/smartphone to play on, you should teach them.

I think it's important that children grow up amongst other children, the social aspect of schooling, but the real education must be done at home. When I look back at my own, it's obvious that a vast proportion of it was junk, and mostly forgotten. Wasted time, when so many more useful things could have been taught.

I don't believe in education just for the workforce, that is like indoctrination into somebody else's idea of the world, a form of subservience and hidden slavery.

Knowing how to THINK is core.

Having IMAGINATION is core.

Questioning authority is core.

Questioning the validity of systems is core, i.e. the money system.

General knowledge of geography, history, especially migration and cultures is important. But taught as ONE SUBJECT. When I learned those as individual subjects, we were taught how to think like academics, researching a historical find for example. Useless to a child. Knowing the history of the Western civilisation, of our empires, of nations struggles for independence and why, the history of where royalty came from and why they even exist - this is important stuff.

An awareness of religions without any religious doctrine being taught is important. An understanding of the irrefutable evidence of the sciences ans why they work.

Languages taught, but in modern, useful ways. A broad AND deep understanding of great fictional works. An encouragement to seek out films, plays, stories that are not spoon-fed to us by the giant media corporations, that challenge their idea of "media as only entertainment".

An understanding of musical theory and instrument playing. An encouragement to look after oneself physically. Knowledge of basic cooking, of the flora and fauna in ones environment, survival skills, tool making skills. These are skills that would have value even if all the worlds oil supplies were to one day run out, taking electrical power with it!

In the meantime, I think every person should be taught touch-typing from an early age, and speed reading technique.

I also believe that in this day and age, those who cannot code/programme on an even basic level will be like those who couldn't read or write in the past.

Outdoor activities should be encouraged, but not the usual team games like football, I mean useful skills like rock-climbing, archery, skiing, horse riding, skills that can be used in a daily life if and when necessary.

Fighting skills / self-defense - why waste time on stupid stuff like badminton when Brazilian Jui-Jutsu could be taught in the limited time instead?

I want all my kids as black belts before they leave school!

The classic game of chess should be mandatory for brain development and deferred, long-term thinking and planning skills. As should the encouragement of mental arithmetic skills.

I also believe meditation should be done in the morning and afternoon before going home to encourage deeper thinking, calmness and well-being, increased attention and focus, as well as inner peace and enlightenment.

To me, any kid who comes out of school with those skills is way ahead of the curve.

Fuck the system.

[PoosyWrecker]

Would like to have had real physical education in barbell training, swimming, correct running form (POSE/Chi), yoga, mobility and rehabilitation (Mobility WOD) with concurrent anatomy and physiology classes. Could have saved a ton of time in our early twenties having to learn about this stuff on our own, and all the money wasted on supplements.

They should learn some basic lifesaving skills like CPR, tourniquet, the Heimlich, what to do if someone passes out from binge drinking, or if your car goes into a lake while you're driving. Why depend on first responders to arrive?

Quote:

What should the end goal be for students in a school system? Should the emphasis be on tailoring curriculum to prepare students for the workforce? Should the emphasis be on concrete academic subjects - classic "reading, writing and 'rithmetic?"

Many youngins I've talked with are disconnected from real life. They know the answers to describe a bicameral legislature and electron orbitals and misogyny but they don't really know anything about how our technological world works, day to day stuff like how to file a 1040, difference between gas and diesel, how much power is generated by nuclear or coal or hydro, how food gets to your table. This female a college bio graduate tells me that Las Vegas is 'unsustainable' somehow she forgot about the dam right next to it. Another graduate tells me we need to go to hydrogen fuel cars but can't explain why or how we are going to get there. I bet half those college grads who say they hate 'the corporations' can't explain its business structure.

Education today and my generation 10 years back leaves 'kids' (actually grown adults) clueless. Should they learn job skills or academics? They need to learn how to be functioning mature adult citizens to start with.

[The Beast1]

Honestly, the easiest way to start helping our education system is by seperating boys and girls from K to 12.

School is a wonderful example of a "Lord of the Flies" environment and closest to our matriarchal roots. The girls hang with the boys who hit up their genetic imperative, teachers are just students who were never popular but want authority anyway, and the majority of the boys get shafted by it all.

The only kids who are making any real money are the computer nerds I hung with. Everyone else stayed local in my small home town.

[Ensam]

Prevent revolution by creating a prosperous, well behaved, intellectual class. That's it.

Unrestrained intellectuals are fucking dangerous. The worst atrocities of the 19th and 20th century were mostly initiated by poets, artists and philosophers.

[Statsi]

The primary goal should be return of investment, secondly the goal should be a baseline standard in society(although this actually ties with return on investment).

Ideally the amount of money it costs(government spending, tax payer, private schooling... etc) on average per student should be less than the amount of money the average student returns to the system. This is the baseline. You can tier this further by dividing by merit, those students more likely to have a higher return should recieve more funding. Division by merit can be done by early years IQ testing, apititude testing, or whatever means are dependable. While some people would fall through the cracks those who are meant for greatness will have the ability to prove themselves as time goes on, this is a similar system to how university used to work, requiring a certain level of academic achievement or grades in order to distinguish those who are capable from those who are not. You can include those who show a great aptitude in sporting and physical endevours also, assuming that a certain % of those who go on to have great success in sports will contribute a greater return on investment. This is most important for public education, rich folk can pay to have their kids put through the top end education regardless of ability privately, however tiering acess to great facilities and investment means that all of the top end should be on equal footing.

The second goal is actually tied to the first, a baseline level for society. Being able to read, write, count, etc is important in order to have a smooth flowing society. However this is actually the same as the first goal, as the cost of having people in your society without basic literacy and arithemtic skills is very high, certainly higher than the cost of educating them to the basic standard. Those in the category would probably have a higher return on investment if they were moved to trade schools rather than academic pursuits, with the exception of those who show great aptitude in physical and sporting pursuits.

The cost of higher education per person should be measured against the average cost of them not attending. For instance those who continue to study are less likely to commit crimes, be unemployed, have minimum wage jobs, etc. This data is available, as well as the data on the average return on investment. Creating an algorythm that computes the return on investment would allow others to see what they need to do in order to gain access to higher education. For instance getting an A in a pre-university course would be a strong indicator of being a worthwhile return on investment.

[Grit]

The education system is a total joke in a non-Protestant-work-ethic-god-fearing society.

Echoing Thomas the Rhymer, politics is too ingrained in this.

I believe that I am most qualified to teach my kids what I think they should know. I believe that the ultimate test of a strong culture is regarding children as adults-in-training, and not coddled infants. I think parents who do not have the capacity to teach their children about the world are dysfunctional and need to be shunned. I believe that education should be decentralized and not systematic as a standard, therefore requiring family proaction to succeed. Homeschooling should be the norm, not the exception.

Having said this, you cannot propose an education *system* that doesn't violate my politics. Systems for teaching kids should be as varied as the number of families and kids.

[cardguy]

Education should try and make the students rich. But not financially...

Money has a financial and utility value.

The utility value of a million pounds is greater to a healthy guy than it is to guy with ten million pounds - who also happens to be blind, deaf, dumb and paralysed. To give an extreme example.

The value of a good education is that it makes you realise the best things in life are free. Or if not free - at least cheap and plentiful.

A good conversation with interesting and knowledgable friends.

Having interests and pursuits you are passionate about.

Being able to study and explore the wonders of Western civilisation, science, mathematics, philosophy and literature.

Ironically - I only came to this realisation after leaving school. At my school the only thing they cared about was getting you to pass exams.

I feel sorry for dumb people who are not educated. Since they are trapped in the capitalist shill game of thinking pleasure can only be found through expensive consumer trinkets.

So what is the point of school? These days it is about being educated enough to help serve the system. But not so educated that you start to question the system altogether.

[Sawyer]

It should be about anything other than what it is now: A jobs program to keep teachers out of trouble during the day.

[WestIndianArchie]

Purpose depends on perspective.

The current system at its best is designed to cream those who get it immediately from those who do not. It's a giant tournament system meant to give the winners the chance to work for the best Masters.

Few people are able to see the fraud, and fewer still able to do something about it. Those that do, often just join the ranks of the powerful.

What should it be?

Teaching kids marketable skills? lol
Teaching children the classics? A society where everything is open to debate and interpretation?

Do you want a society that is just? Fair?
Or one that "works"?

WIA

[Vendetta]

(11-27-2013 09:07 AM)Statsi Wrote:  

Ideally the amount of money it costs(government spending, tax payer, private schooling... etc) on average per student should be less than the amount of money the average student returns to the system. This is the baseline. You can tier this further by dividing by merit, those students more likely to have a higher return should recieve more funding. Division by merit can be done by early years IQ testing, apititude testing, or whatever means are dependable. While some people would fall through the cracks those who are meant for greatness will have the ability to prove themselves as time goes on

I totally disagree with this. Your idea plays directly into the pre-existing system of people as no more than economic factors that need to be accounted for. It sees people as cogs in the machine; are they capable of keeping the wheels turning? Great, if not, sorry, you fall through the cracks.

If any person receives a decent, rounded education, over time, their personal strengths and interests will come to the fore, and I encourage the students to pursue those as far as they can.

This guarantees diversity of skills, happiness to the people themselves and a better, more diverse society in general.