Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Replacing public education

Replacing public education
June 28, 2009, 01:17:37 AM
Between political coercion and a desire to make everyone pass, most schools have been dumbing it down for sixty years at this point.

This is why in the USA, a high school degree no longer means more than "I managed to attend some place for 75% or more of the time, semi-reliably."

That's why most people need college... a high school degree carries no weight.

It's why most college people need graduate school... college is high school x 1.5.

And it's also why colleges spend a lot of time teaching the remedial, so a graduate doesn't know a lot of things they need.

So my question is what is a reading/skills list for each?

Column A:
- What books should be read and skills learned to have a complete HIGH SCHOOL education?

Column B:
- What books should be read and skills learned to have a complete COLLEGE education?

I guess we can list experiences too.

A.
- Brave New World
- The Republic
- The story of philosophy
- Introductory economics
- Basic physics
- Team activities
- Solo research projects of > 20 pages

B.
- Naked Lunch
- Fistfights
- Beyond good and evil

I'm sure there are more.

Re: Replacing public education
June 28, 2009, 04:31:43 AM
It's not only about books to be read, but goals and objective in general.
I think that highschool education should familiarize the student with natural science, social sciences, and spirit sciences -
A highschool graduate should be fully capable in the fields of maths, physics, chemistry, biology and computer science in a basic university level
Should be aquainted with sociology, psychology and statecraft
should know at least five great artists from each age of art, and at least 5 pieces by each, as well as calssic civilization literature.

However, when I think of it, not everyone should study and are capable for learning these subjects to this extent. That's the stuff to grow leaders out of, not peasants or workers, we have to admit we need a different system with different goals for their education

Re: Replacing public education
July 12, 2009, 06:36:36 PM
Quote
However, when I think of it, not everyone should study and are capable for learning these subjects to this extent. That's the stuff to grow leaders out of, not peasants or workers, we have to admit we need a different system with different goals for their education

That could also be interesting to discuss: should the common worker have a reasonable generic knowledge of the world around him or not? I think if you want responsible citizens who care about their history, their environment and their culture they would definitely need to be educated to a certain minimum. The method of education itself is not so interesting to me right now because different times will demand different methods. What does matter is what kind of people you want your eduction system to produce. Why should a common machine operator, field worker or baker not be able to discuss philosophy, history or art? Note that I'm not saying they should be experts, I mean they should have at least enough knowledge to understand the basics of the civilization they are part of. Hitler's working class understood, Rome's working class understood, why doesn't the modern working class understand? Because they aren't offered any understanding, only escape through TV and abuse of medicines.

Re: Replacing public education
July 12, 2009, 08:05:14 PM
I am not suggesting that the common man shouldn't have understanding of the world around him, on the contrary, he should be tought how to use tools of understanding and debating, but the fact remain the same, your averege taxi driver won't be able to discuss phylosophy with you (probably) while a community leader would and should. It reminds me of Nietchze saying "If you want to train slaves, why are you teaching them to rule?" and this is the main point. Poeple should first have a profession, then skills required to get along with the world around them (basic arithmatics, biology etc.) and only then phylosophical education. Note that I did not mention cultural education, which was done for the following reason - culture is a dynamic thing, but it is inevitable that some would creat and some would participate. The abilities and training needed for both are different. I have no idea with a baker who writes moving poems on the nature of life and death, but it would probably be an exception. What all people should be familiar with is their own culture and be able to discuss and further understand its ideas to the extent of their capabilities

Re: Replacing public education
July 12, 2009, 08:55:38 PM
I'm a little confused by some of your reply, maybe I'm not seeing the obvious but...

Quote
Poeple should first have a profession, then skills required to get along with the world around them (basic arithmatics, biology etc.) and only then phylosophical education.

How can you first give people a profession and after that give them an education? The other way around seems more traditional to me. You teach people the basics of history, language, maths, geography, biology, etc. Then let them decide which of those they want to expertise themselves in. And with that basic foundation of knowledge they are also taught a sense of national identity and environmental responsibility. And eventually with the expertise they pursue they can find a steady profession, whether the expertise is how to bake bread and delicacies or advanced nuclear fission is up to them and their capabilities. Perhaps you meant people should first learn a profession but then I still disagree for the aforementioned reasons. I believe in a healthy society people would have both a skilled profession and a broad general knowledge. Like I wrote previously it would be expertise that sets us apart, not stupid/smart or leader/follower which I consider as thinking in black and white. The ideal society I'm thinking of wouldn't need much leaders anyway, and if people are indeed responsible it wouldn't require much leadership either so the leader might as well only be symbolic. I think modern times has too many leaders, just look at how complicated the EU is set up. But I'm drifting from the original topic now.

Quote
I have no idea with a baker who writes moving poems on the nature of life and death, but it would probably be an exception.

I know of a certain factory worker that accidentally chopped off his fingers in his enthusiasm once. He went on to create some pretty influential music, you may know who I'm referring to. Do you think he's an exception? How many congressmen, mayors, politicians, etc do you know to have made great metal music then? Artists usually make very poor community leaders, the only ones who make it anywhere are actors and that's because they are skilled liars.

Re: Replacing public education
July 13, 2009, 06:05:06 AM
In any educational system, obviously, there are those to be educated and those who are to educate. Who choses who fills those categories?
Who s to say you are to be educated in this or that matter, way etc? In any central educational system there are only those domains/fields wich the "rulers" by statistics or solely by choice, both based on their morals (dont be fooled by those that say that statistics is science), set budgets to be spend in this or that field of education. Favoring a central educational system you agree on limited choices, on bireaucrats setting your only possible future skills, jobs, planing your field of knowledge (they say you got freedom of choice, but every possible choice is theirs to offer, wtf is that?).

The general knowledge on history, civilisation, culture, arts etc, may be very well and more efficently made by freely consulting diferent sources, not paying to be held hostage in classes, public libraries etc, where everything has to be aproved by the system before you can read it. Everywhere in public schools you have kids obliged to learn stuff that they ll never use or forced to forget in the second after the exam... just because thats the rule, that's, according to their studies and statistics and "principles", needed to know so you become an educated citizen. That is an obedient one. Schools dont produce geniuses, great artists or great men, in any field, in any time, era, political system etc but stupid future taxpayers with a big ego of knowing some unimportant detail about some philosopher that he ll never actually get use from.

It s not a matter of changeing what is to be read to have an education, finding faults in the list of books to be read,  but a matter of how wrong the centralized ed sys is as a concept.
World War I as the End of Civilization.
Tolkien as a Libertarian.
Sammaellofi:So for now on, when someone asks you what good metal is, don't say Slayer, Darkthrone, Morbid Angel, but instead say Hell Awaits, Transilvanian Hunger and Blessed are the Sick.

Re: Replacing public education
July 14, 2009, 09:22:58 PM
http://www.missionislam.com/homed/11reasons.htm

Quote
Raising Your Own Children is Fun and Fulfilling.Widespread institutionalization of children has damaged children, families and the motherland. You can reclaim your children & family, as well as your culture and family lineage.

Eleven Reasons

To Raise Your Own Child by refraining from institutionalizing your child and choosing instead :"homeschooling,"

"Un-schooling," or non-schooling your precious child

1. Let Your Child Obtain Superior and Genuine Learning

Public Institutionalization of your child does not improve your child’s ability to learn. Instead, it impairs the ability to learn. Keeping your child with you will normally result in superior intelligence and superior education, especially if you connect yourself to rich culture.

2. Let Your Child Obtain High Values

The institutionalization of your child will not bring high spiritual or moral values to your child. Instead, it creates in your child an alienation from such values.

3. Let Your Child Develop High Character

Qualities of character are of greater value than intellectual or technical knowledge. Institutionalization stresses intellectual and technical knowledge, while introducing negative qualities of character.

4. Let Your Child Be a Child

Institutionalization of your child robs him or her of the child’s view and sensitivities at an early age.

5. Let Your Child Develop Genuine Maturity

The typical home schooled child exhibits a striking savviness and functionality in dealing with the real world, ALONG WITH the retention of attractive childlike qualities of innocence, spontaneity and trust. These latter qualities soon are wiped out of the institutionalized child, while the qualities of maturity, competence, and "can-do" ability are generally undeveloped. These qualities don’t get a chance to emerge until the child is finally liberated from institutionalization, late in life, when the child gets a late start in building a real life.

6. Preserve and Develop Your Culture and Pass It On To Your Child It is your cultural right to decide what is important for your child to know.

By institutionalizing your child, you surrender this right and allow others to choose what your child will know and believe. You give up cultural transmission and disturb your family lineage.

7. Let Your Child Learn Genuine Socialization Instead Of False and Negative Socialization & Negative Coping Behaviors

Keeping your child with you and your tribe will normally result in a superior quality of socialization and comfort in-groups, along with personal integrity. Institutionalization of your child will often result in a damaged capacity for meaningful social connection, or negative patterns of socialization which are really just coping skills. Also institutionalization normally results in damaged personal integrity for the child.

Non institutionalized children normally exhibit:

    * Better spirit of fair play
    * More inclusiveness and less cliqueishness
    * More sensitivity to others
    * Far greater ability to mix and speak with people of all ages, rather than having phobias of different-aged people
    * Greater ease in talking to adults and a natural interest in adult conversations
    * Greater cooperativeness in the family, tribe, or other groups
    * A much greater comprehension of the "big picture" as it pertains to their social group and other groups
    * greater awareness of issues and problems in the real world; less insularity and more inclination to social activism; attunement to the "news" in the real world
    * Homeschooling girls normally have far greater "mother-consciousness’ and tendency to appreciate infants and small children
    * Homeschooling kids develop far fewer negative "coping behaviors" such as sarcastic talk, name-calling, persecution of others, obsession with clothes and appearance, "in" thinking, flirtation and manipulation
    * Institutionalized kids seldom keep a friend long; lose their relationship with their teacher each year, and often do not feel close even to the people they call friends. Rarely does a friendship last through the years of public schooling and beyond.

But non-schooled children normally have a few genuinely close friends who they retain for many years and often for life. They develop friendships that are deep and lasting. This is the real oven of socialization—the human relationship. John Holt, home school advocate, stated that it is more valuable for a child to have a few real and intimate friends than to be loosely associated with a crowd of people who are never really close. The fact is public schools actually eliminate real bonding and genuine relationships among children, and replace these with only one fruitless relationship: That of the child to the state/authority system. Socialization is meaningless without nature’s basic system and unit of socialization—the family. By raising your own children this unit is strengthened and revivified, thus the child inherits the true structures that comprise socialization itself, instead of membership in a vast peonage owing it’s life to state entities. Family, clan and tribe is the better landscape of social life.

8. Let Your Child Have a Real Family

The family itself has declined through the widespread institutionalization of children over several decades. If you yourself don’t have a family because you give your kids to the State—How will your child ever know how to create a family?

9. Let Your Child Have You

You can’t raise your child nights and weekends. Your child incarnated with you because they wanted to be raised by you and have YOUR teachings. It is a sacred obligation to give your child all that you have. Most of what you have to pass on to your child can only be passed on through much physical proximity to you daily, through the daily events of life. One of the most important ways a child gets your spirit and values is by actually breathing your breath. They can’t get that if you send them off to breathe the breath of some stranger.

10. Refrain From Abandoning Your Child

In the plaintive song "End of The Summer" Dar Williams sings this line condemning parents who thoughtlessly send their children to a foreign place of which the parents have little knowledge:

"It’s the end of the summer— when you send your children to the moon."

11. Maintain Your "Right To Assembly"

As an American or any other nationality The family is the most fundamental unit of "assembly" that exists. Without that fundamental unit of human assemblage, there would ultimately be no other assemblies. Your role with your child is not merely that of a room-and meal provider, while others take the choice role of instilling values and knowledge. Never underestimate that you are your child’s primary teacher, and this is a sacred relationship. You have both the right and obligation to raise your own child, in the way that you believe is best for your child, and to pass on your unique intellectual, moral, and spiritual heritage as well as that of your ancestors—all of whom watch over and care about your child also. Diversity of culture—genuine human culture vs. artificial and state-created—will be reborn when parents take their children back. The world will then become a green garden again, because true wisdom flourishes WHERE ELDERS PASS ON THEIR WISDOM for three consecutive generations or more.

I'm inclined to agree here.

Drilling someone to memorize information and then spit it up again for a quiz or a test is hardly learning.

Re: Replacing public education
July 15, 2009, 03:01:32 AM
Why should a common machine operator, field worker or baker not be able to discuss philosophy, history or art? Note that I'm not saying they should be experts, I mean they should have at least enough knowledge to understand the basics of the civilization they are part of. Hitler's working class understood, Rome's working class understood, why doesn't the modern working class understand? Because they aren't offered any understanding, only escape through TV and abuse of medicines.

Were there convenience stores, fast food chains, and Wall Marts in any bygone era? I think this is an anachronism. People escape in a variety of unhealthy ways because their jobs are completely meaningless and they, at least subconsciously, know that. Machine operator, field worker or baker all sound far more appealing than most of the life draining jobs I've had, like working at a convenience store for example, that existed for no other reason than to keep people from realizing their jobs, albeit slightly better than mine, were equally as meaningless. I'm not trying to sound like a fatalist, but rather point out that a lot of professions nowadays have nothing to do with any good sense of "progress," only attempts to push our resources as far as possible to continue to maintain our booming population which mainly consists of sub-par humans that continually need more and more ways to be inebriated so they don't kill themselves before they in turn are pigeonholed into another dead end job and dead end family. There is a huge problem with our education system in that it has progressively degraded to support this kind of world more and more, with crap like "no child left behind." There are entire subjects that I believe should be made mandatory in elementary and high school like logic, philosophy (especially philosophy of science), higher mathematics, and sciences like astronomy, physics, biochemistry and anatomy. College has become some kind of glorified high school with at least two years being used to "catch up" students to a point that they already should be caught up to by the time they enter college, making graduate school far more necessary to pursue any worthwhile profession. Children, whether being put into public or private school, should be encouraged by their parents to learn and actually grasp science, philosophy and other subjects outside of school instead of being sat in front of a television (which also means having less fucking kids because if you just keep popping them out you're not going to be able to be responsible for each one) and people have to realize that some kids (and some parents) are just inherently not as fucking bright as everyone else, and there should be actual consequences for fucking up in school and also actual options like trade schools or programs that will train and employ these people as plumbers, landscapers and builders instead of more fast food workers. Unfortunately I don't think there's any blanket answer besides people just taking responsibility for their children and being made aware of overpopulation, global warming and reasons why they shouldn't keep buying into mindless consumerism, which is hard considering how many idiots there are and how idiots are the ones that have too many idiot kids. I guess one answer is figuring out how to make idiots realize that their crappy life choices are going to end up seriously damaging their numerous children and grandchildren's lives in the future, which might be something they can care about.

Re: Replacing public education
July 15, 2009, 06:18:00 AM
I'd be more positive about this whole thing. For one, all of the fast food workers will die, and all of the people who ate the fast food will die too, and become potting soil for our great-grandchildren to grow flowers with. So even though they might not have trade skills, they'll be good at being mulch for the descendants of the people who were able to Get Their Shit Together(TM). And that's the basic story of human life.

In seriousness, they escape through easy routes all the time, like taking an easy job and never challenging themselves because they're blinded, for one reason. It's HAAAARRRD TO become a doctor, because you'll have to do this thing called staring at a text book for hours to memorize facts for your anal teacher's already-dumbed-down tests, and it's way too difficult to have to do that for 8 years to get into medical school and whatever. I mean, you already did that for the past 12 years. How much harder do you want to make it on yourself maaaaan? Weed isn't even that expensive, and a paycheck at Wendy's will definitely cover a fat sack o' dank.

Another reason is because of the passivity. Sure there's other options, and they may be beyond your needs and everyone else's, and you don't need to move further to get where YOU want to go. You wanna live tha good life. get that new dvd player and some furniture from IKEA and buy some new flannels at Urban Outfitters. You don't want much because it's teh boheeemian life and artists live free from materialism like that. Then again, you could just take it a step further and go for freeganism, and LIVE FREE FROM THE SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY OFF OF ITS BYPRODUCTS. To, you know, make a change?

If you want to move a river, you don't swim upstream, or downstream, or just float like driftwood. You have to be part of the damn river.



And to address that not as many people are that fucking bright, I'm finding that to be a little bit false to a certain degree. It must just be the circle of people I am acquainted with who have a bad case of the "modern lifes", but they certainly do have the facilities for 'high IQ' thought - they just never tapped into it, or never got into the good habit of challenging themselves. (It's not hard to challenge them though). Also because passivity is a nice, breezy downhill path that you can just coast along for a while, until you meet certain destruction. But they don't want to know that, they just wanna have fun man. Don't be such a buzzkill, man!

Re: Replacing public education
July 15, 2009, 10:12:50 PM
How can you first give people a profession and after that give them an education? The other way around seems more traditional to me. You teach people the basics of history, language, maths, geography, biology, etc. Then let them decide which of those they want to expertise themselves in.

I think what he means is to group people by general aptitude. Those who are going to professions where they work with their hands and bodies don't need to be burdened with all this stuff, and those who are going on to higher education and beyond have needs separate from the middle group. This is why most conventional education divided students into three groups: slow, average, and accelerated.

These correspond to working class/blue collar (100-114), middle class (115-124) and upper middle class (125+). IQ is an amazing predictor of educational attainment:

* http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html
* http://pmsol3.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/everyone-is-not-equal-first-rule-of-education-in-21st-century-america/

Most brainy metal bands are from the middle class or upper middle class categories.

Re: Replacing public education
July 16, 2009, 05:09:51 PM
News related to topic:

Quote
'Wikipedia kids' ill-prepared for university, professors say

Pressure from Queen's Park to increase high school graduation rates has led to a generation of "Wikipedia kids" who are not prepared for university, a survey of professors and librarians has concluded.

Students are immature, they rely too heavily on Internet tools such as Wikipedia as research sources, they fail to learn independently and they expect success without putting in the effort, said respondents to the survey by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations.

"The McGuinty government is applauding itself for increased graduation rates from secondary school," says the confederation's report, which urges more funding for for classrooms.

"However, it appears that secondary students are not receiving the requisite skills that they need to be successful in university studies."

The survey asked professors and librarians in the province's 22 universities about a number of issues, including the preparedness of first-year students now compared to three years ago. The confederation, which has 15,000 members, received 2,000 replies.

Just over 55 per cent said students are less prepared now than three years ago, while almost 27 per cent said students were about the same.

Over 15 per cent said they had no opinion. Only 2.27 per cent thought students are better prepared.

Observers blame a number of factors, from inflated parental expectations to the self-esteem culture that leads young people to believe that failure is impossible and paying tuition means getting a good grade.

"They're thinking about the fact they're paying for university. It's almost an an entitlement to a good grade," said Brian Brown, president of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations and a professor of visual arts at the University of Windsor.

....

Meanwhile, high school graduation rates in the province have climbed. Last year, that rate stood at 77 per cent, two percentage points more than in the previous year, and nine percentage points more compared to 2003-2004. By 2011, the province aims to have a graduation rate of at least 85 per cent.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Wikipedia+kids+prepared+university+professors/1475624/story.html


Re: Replacing public education
August 20, 2009, 01:59:09 AM
How can you first give people a profession and after that give them an education? The other way around seems more traditional to me. You teach people the basics of history, language, maths, geography, biology, etc. Then let them decide which of those they want to expertise themselves in.

I think what he means is to group people by general aptitude. Those who are going to professions where they work with their hands and bodies don't need to be burdened with all this stuff, and those who are going on to higher education and beyond have needs separate from the middle group. This is why most conventional education divided students into three groups: slow, average, and accelerated.

These correspond to working class/blue collar (100-114), middle class (115-124) and upper middle class (125+). IQ is an amazing predictor of educational attainment:

* http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html
* http://pmsol3.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/everyone-is-not-equal-first-rule-of-education-in-21st-century-america/

Most brainy metal bands are from the middle class or upper middle class categories.

nobody asks himself WHO. Who shall do these things? Who shall decide who's fited for what?
World War I as the End of Civilization.
Tolkien as a Libertarian.
Sammaellofi:So for now on, when someone asks you what good metal is, don't say Slayer, Darkthrone, Morbid Angel, but instead say Hell Awaits, Transilvanian Hunger and Blessed are the Sick.

Re: Replacing public education
August 20, 2009, 08:33:50 AM
Who shall decide who's fited for what?

This is the modern cliche: you can "debunk" anything by asking "But who is responsible?"

Answer: you set standards, and it doesn't matter who's responsible, as long as that person is responsible.

Give it a break. Life isn't personal. You're just mouth-repeating stuff you've been saturated in since childhood.

Re: Replacing public education
August 20, 2009, 01:56:42 PM
I wasnt clear enough , my bad.
I was going through the topic and it seamed to me that all the suggestions were actually for a better system, radicaly unchanged. Or for a (educational) system to work you need people in charge. My question was Who are these people? and who chooses them, on what basis. An answer shall be: well, the most educated ar fit to educate. Wich is an ok idea if you have strategy that werent obviously wrong on the basis that no great genius/specialist  (= an individual that not only knows great deal about the matter (specialist) but can bring novelty to that domain (genius) ) is actually a great teacher, or does he chooses to teach. neeadles to ask the manner in wich you find and recognize great individuals, or great specialist ready and wiling to teach. Use force? But how s that diffrent from the actual system (that uses force for funds and reinterprets almost everything that counts in order to propel itself etc)

So it seems to me that all that s said here is more like an ideal of how current education system should be if you were in charge. And thats like: well this gov sucks lets change it with another.

public education it s obviously wrong: diferent individuals-to-be, with diferent goals stuck together by force, it s no surprise they get so many psychological traumas, they start shooting each other etc  Central education is wrong too: why should I send my kids to some school that preaches things i dont agree with: and any official school program is socialistic in essence no matter they wanna look liberal etc This is a melting pot: the intention is to create not smart, intelligent, aware individuals, but citizens: dumb, not minding control, welcoming it as necessary, no matter who runs the show: socialists or democrats, nazis or commies, roadrunner records or anus.com, mandrake or conservationist. :)) The system in itself obliges to this effect.

so, i think both conservationist and me would rather prefere, him for his kid, me for mine, choosing teachers, choosing schools, after a very attentive analisis of their matter of the school itself, its history etc then just send them over to the state'searly-prisons-for-citizens to be, i mean schools. Stupid parents would choose wrong, but in this system we re all obliged to choose wrong, cause all we got to choose from is what the state decides that s good for the children (be it any gov, liberal, socialist etc) If there are private schools it must be said that they cant exist without gov legal consent (or how they call it) so they are controlled to. (anyhow what school could you have established in this already state-hypnotized times?) the no-state-interference-alternative wouldnt make any slow minded an perfectly culturalized and intelligent human beings, but this actual system tends to make us all as slow minded as it gets.
Look at yourselfs: are your beliefs and your personal cultural knowledge what the 5th grade teacher told you or what you have personaly learned by reading, asking, finding out etc

but still you think the system has to be changed, taken over by individuals that fit your personal beliefs, not pulled to the ground. any political party that you hate thinks the same.

World War I as the End of Civilization.
Tolkien as a Libertarian.
Sammaellofi:So for now on, when someone asks you what good metal is, don't say Slayer, Darkthrone, Morbid Angel, but instead say Hell Awaits, Transilvanian Hunger and Blessed are the Sick.

Re: Replacing public education
August 20, 2009, 06:52:36 PM
Wich is an ok idea if you have strategy that werent obviously wrong on the basis that no great genius/specialist  (= an individual that not only knows great deal about the matter (specialist) but can bring novelty to that domain (genius) ) is actually a great teacher, or does he chooses to teach. neeadles to ask the manner in wich you find and recognize great individuals, or great specialist ready and wiling to teach. 

What about Richard Feynman?
Let us go beyond "you" and "me"! Feel cosmically!
   
    Friedrich Nietzsche