Thread: Is mandatory education a mistake?

I agree there is some stuff we really don't need to know. But there is also things people need to be taught.

Originally Posted by Xyn

I agree there is some stuff we really don't need to know. But there is also things people need to be taught.

such as?

I agree as well. The education system needs to be revamped, it's been the same for hundreds of years now and it's proving to be a failure. Look at the general population for an example. We've been absorbing facts from a wide variety of facets which leads to us forgetting everything we've ever learned. Parroting information is completely useless.

Well, I have to disagree with you on the social thing. I think schooling is an important way to bring young people together, and let them learn social dynamics on their own. I don't think it would be the same if we didn't have schooling (or an adequate substitute) as a social learning cornerstone. I know a few kids who have been homeschooled, and just don't know how to connect with their peers. Maybe that's the fault of the parent, but it'll still happen.

However I do agree with the other points you bring up. Most of this knowledge is wasted. I already forget everything I learned about calculus and physics, which were deemed among many as the most important subjects in highschool. There are some necessities we learn in our younger years, like reading/writing and basic maths, but going any further than that it seems like we're doing something wrong. Sure there's the argument that subjects and grades are not about the learning, but the responsibility one must exhibit to succeed, but I don't think that's how we should measure one's capabilities, much less teach someone.

Something I've noticed is that when I'm interested in or passionate about something, studying it isn't even an effort. It just happens. I think most people are the same way. In highschool it seems we're given a very strict curriculum to abide by. Most of which isn't very important (or at least, deemed interesting by the student). I never worked to my fullest potential because there were only a few topics here and there I could really give my full attention to. Seems like the people who really did well in highschool were either the few who happened to be interested in the subject matter, or the ones who could manipulate their attention/motivation the best.

This static, boring curriculum is reflected socially. Highschool's known for popularity cliques and adolescent anxiety/angst. I feel it was during these years that myself and everyone around me were really being trained to become common consumers. In university there's far more freedom. People start to learn what they want to learn (assuming they even know what they want by this point). This freedom reflects itself socially as well. I notice much more freethinking and far less shallow social dynamics in the campuses I've been to.

I think that we shouldn't have to wait this long/pay ludicrous sums of money to be able to afford this quality education. If we apply this less restricting, less lazy approach to education in general, young people will not only get more out of education but possibly even find their calling along the way. This guy sums it up far better than I could ever hope to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY. Its a long vid but well worth it, I assure you.

It's no secret that mandatory, public education (at least as it currently exists) is far from perfect. I don't think that this point even bears discussion. However, repealing mandatory education would be a huge step backward socially rather than forward.

1. Half a loaf is better than none at all

It is overly idealistic to believe that in the absence of mandated education, most children would still pursue academic interests or that their parents would direct their education. Certainly this wasn't the case before education became mandated, which is why it was mandated in the first place.

But surely we've changed since colonial times when an unschooled child would simply be made to help around the farm and leave it at that? I'll grant this, but we've changed in other ways as well. Most modern parents don't have the time to direct their child's education. Moreover, many don't have the inclination or ability to do so. Finally, there are issues related to the quality of this education, which I touch on in my next point.

So what about the children; can't they take control of their own education? I see no reason to believe that anything more than a small minority of children would even attempt this, and even less reason to believe that many of these would succeed in reaching a respectable level. While it's true that we have more learning resources now than ever before, including the World Wide Web, it's also true that we have more numerous and enticing distractors than ever before: television, video games, etc.

2. Quality of education and breadth vs. depth

So what about those children who are fortunate enough to be able to seize control of their education in a world where doing so isn't mandatory? An obvious concern here is what they end up studying. There's a natural tendency to opt for depth of knowledge in a specialized domain over breadth of knowledge in a general domain. Both are important, of course, and the trick is to strike a balance between the two. The problem is that without a mandated curriculum, doing so will be extremely difficult. Students who direct themselves will tend to focus on the subjects that they enjoy (which may be trivial) and neglect the subjects that they dislike (which may be crucial). Students whose education is directed by their parents will not be much better off, since it would take a very special kind of parent indeed (such as a teacher by profession) to impart a wide breadth of general knowledge (or even a great deal of specialized knowledge, for that matter).

Also consider that general knowledge from other domains (i.e., breadth of knowledge) can support and illuminate knowledge from a specialized domain. For example, knowledge of math and statistics is useful for understanding the probabilistic nature of evolutionary theory. Not to mention that such general knowledge is often useful in its own right.

As a final point, many students will not find that magical subject or topic that sparks their intellectual curiosity without being initially exposed to it in an educational program that fosters breadth of knowledge.

3. Private education

Of course, all of the discussion so far has avoided the possibility of students still receiving a first rate, private education. I think the problems with relying solely on this model are obvious. First of all, relatively few families can afford such an education. Furthermore, who in the subsequent generation is going to receive this private education? The children of the students who already received private education, of course! Now consider the effects that quality education has on determining future success. With this in mind, I think we can both agree that the rich-poor gap in society is expanding fast enough without adding this effect to it.

At a time when privatized health care (where it still exists) is under such intense scrutiny, it's not hard to see the correlates that this has with the prospect of privatized education. Repealing mandatory, public education will result in huge numbers of would-be students simply having their opportunities stripped from them.

Whats the difference between going to school then when you get out you work at walmart, and not going to school and just working on the farm?

There are tons of people who finish school and then they go to work in low level jobs. For them, going to school probably didn't help them at all in finding a better job. They would end up pretty much in the same place had they not gone to school at all.

What worse is people go to collage, and they will get poor jobs. A ton of people never finish collage or they get one of the worthless degrees that don't actually help them get a job at all. Or strangely enough the degree helps them get a job but its in a field totally different than what they had studied.

Most of the time, having experience in a job is better than having an education. Which is strange as having an education should be very similar to having experience. Though most people know, that just because you have an education doesn't mean you know anything. Like you said, people forget most of the stuff they learned.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

Throughout much of the course of human evolution, the education of children centered around the acquisition of skills that were immediately useful to survival. Furthermore, this education was largely participatory in nature: one learned by doing and improved skills along the way.

Right, they learned how to make a fire, how to kill, and how to cook food. The education was of course participatory, but there wasn't much else to learn, and those skills really were absolutely necessary. They very rarely picked up on anything useless.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

Our current education systems stress accumulating knowledge as the focus of education. The only skill I see being gained, aside from social skills which kids are going to learn anyway, is how to memorize, regurgitate and forget facts. Granted, this is a generalization as many children do find areas that genuinely interest them but many more simply learn that learning consists of sitting behind a desk for eight hours a day while listening to someone talk at them. They learn that learning sucks. Furthermore, they forget most of what they learn anyway. How many adults could pass high school graduation exams by the time they are thirty?

I wouldn't say education focuses on accumulating knowledge. At least in my area, schools are emphasizing learning through learning from what you already know. Nearly every assignment had "critical thinking" questions on it, and math concepts were thrown at you without teacher instruction until the students taught themselves the concept. It was only after grappling with a topic that the teacher stepped in for a formal explanation.

Simple regurgitation of facts only really applies in areas such as biology and languages. Any branch of math, science, or another area requiring calculations forces you to solve a problem you likely have never seen before. Plus, without cold memorization, society would fall apart. Though you or I may not care about the mechanics of septic systems, someone has to.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

This is, in my opinion, a true shame because kids come into the world as 'learning machines'. Should we scrap mandatory education and let the children that want to learn learn what they want? What is the benefit of it? Would letting children ask questions and lead their own education result in a better educated populace? Or am I just stupid?

If we left children to learn only what they wanted, the entire human population would be completely gone in only one generation. I have worked with young children before, and I can basically guarantee this. If we had enough adults on hand to keep things working:

Benefits:
No morale problems. Every student is genuinely interested in their studies.
More people would be available to be teachers. Today's public teacher(and many, many private school teachers) are professor, guidance counselor, and cheerleader all wrapped up in one! Narrow it down to just needing to teach and almost anyone in a given field can instruct.

Drawbacks:
99% of kids would know nothing. Too many distractions out there.
Random chance could spell disaster. No one wants to study English this year? Too bad, looks like avid readers will be stuck reviewing the classics. Now replace "English" with something more critical to daily life(not that literature isn't)

It's late, I can't think of much more to write. In short: This would work... if everyone cared as much as the OP and repliers did.

English has to be one of the worst subjects taught in school. It is one of the few things you have to take every single year, over and over. Yet some how, no one ever learns anything from it.

Though atleast we do not have anyone who is illiterate anymore. Which is a great thing. However we still have a lot of people who are functionally illiterate which isn't really acceptable.

Originally Posted by DuB

It is overly idealistic to believe that in the absence of mandated education, most children would still pursue academic interests or that their parents would direct their education. Certainly this wasn't the case before education became mandated, which is why it was mandated in the first place.

I fail to see what the intrinsic value of an academic education is to begin with if the information is not retained anyway. We retain what we are interested in and what we use on a regular basis. Children, starting shortly after they learn to speak, are an unending stream of 'why' questions. I see no reason why a montessori model, which normally terminates at fifth grade, could not lead immediately to a college style of voluntary and elective education. I would rather have a person reach what we consider to be a "high school" level of education at the age of 30 with their love of learning intact than have it shoved down their throat and forgotten by that age anyway.

Originally Posted by DuB

2. Quality of education and breadth vs. depth

Originally Posted by DuB

Also consider that general knowledge from other domains (i.e., breadth of knowledge) can support and illuminate knowledge from a specialized domain. For example, knowledge of math and statistics is useful for understanding the probabilistic nature of evolutionary theory. Not to mention that such general knowledge is often useful in its own right.

I think that, in my experience as a self directed learner at least (I'm technically a high school dropout here), your first point in the above paragraph is the precise reason to not worry too deeply about the depth versus breadth issue. If you follow your curiosity, then all subjects are eventually connected. As to that type of knowledge being useful in it's own right, I would like examples.

Originally Posted by DuB

As a final point, many students will not find that magical subject or topic that sparks their intellectual curiosity without being initially exposed to it in an educational program that fosters breadth of knowledge.

I don't think that there would be a need for a 'magical subject' if our love of learning wasn't crushed by an oppresive situation that stifles our natural, universal and innate desire to learn. To a three year old, the world is that magical subject.

Originally Posted by DuB

3. Private education

Of course, all of the discussion so far has avoided the possibility of students still receiving a first rate, private education. I think the problems with relying solely on this model are obvious. First of all, relatively few families can afford such an education. Furthermore, who in the subsequent generation is going to receive this private education? The children of the students who already received private education, of course! Now consider the effects that quality education has on determining future success. With this in mind, I think we can both agree that the rich-poor gap in society is expanding fast enough without adding this effect to it.

On the contrary, I think that this would elevate the level of public education: It is a pleasure to teach children that want to learn and that would increase teacher retention (adjusting their pay to reflect the value of the job they do wouldn't hurt either). Furthermore, children that didn't want to be there would not be there distracting classes and this would, in conjunction with having more teachers, lead to smaller class sizes. I have no interest in helping the rich get richer: I say, only ninety percent facetiously, "kill the billionares and let god sort them out". Please let the fact that I am an athiest color that remark for you.

Originally Posted by DuB

At a time when privatized health care (where it still exists) is under such intense scrutiny, it's not hard to see the correlates that this has with the prospect of privatized education. Repealing mandatory, public education will result in huge numbers of would-be students simply having their opportunities stripped from them.

This is a valid concern but exists only because of employers over-emphasis on meaningless degrees. That is a topic for another thread. EDIT: Or this one if you still want to play!

Originally Posted by Licity

Right, they learned how to make a fire, how to kill, and how to cook food. The education was of course participatory, but there wasn't much else to learn, and those skills really were absolutely necessary. They very rarely picked up on anything useless.

Haven't we already had this debate? They learned their culture which was pretty rich. Don't underestimate the hunter-gatherer. How Amazonian shamans figured out that drinking a tea made of psychotria viridia does nothing but mixing in banisteriopsis caapi, which also does nothing, will make you trip fucking balls beyond belief is beyond me. They are fully functioning modern members of the species homo sapiens and I would not think of them as anything but. It takes a little more then "fire kill cook" to survive in the amazon, kalahari or outback. What's more, they did more then survive. They were happy. That's something that many 'modern' humans cannot manage to do.

EDIT: It was flippant to say that banisteriopsis caapi tea does nothing by itself. It is a fairly powerful monamine oxidase inhibitor and so could be used as an anti-depressant.

EDIT 2: It was also flippant to suggest it as an anti-depressant without indicating that it has some pretty severe contraindications, the biggest of which is a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (prozac is an example, I believe). Mix the two and your ass is in a coma. There are lots of common foods that you would want to avoid as well.

Although you haven't addressed several of the (in my opinion, crushing) points that I brought up, I'll respond to the ones that you did address.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

I fail to see what the intrinsic value of an academic education is to begin with if the information is not retained anyway. We retain what we are interested in and what we use on a regular basis. Children, starting shortly after they learn to speak, are an unending stream of 'why' questions. I see no reason why a montessori model, which normally terminates at fifth grade, could not lead immediately to a college style of voluntary and elective education. I would rather have a person reach what we consider to be a "high school" level of education at the age of 30 with their love of learning intact than have it shoved down their throat and forgotten by that age anyway.

Lots of assumptions here.

• We only retain what interests us? There's no reason to believe that this is true. On the contrary, I've forgotten all sorts of things that I initially found fascinating, and retained as many other things that still bore me. Might retention be slanted toward favoring facts and concepts of personal interest to us? Sure, I'll grant you that. But this is a far cry from justifying your position that all other learning is in vain.
• You also presuppose that mandatory education extinguishes the love of learning. But the world is literally chock full of scholars who underwent years of mandatory education and then elected to continue learning -- not to mention grade school dropouts who never acquired a love of learning.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

I think that, in my experience as a self directed learner at least (I'm technically a high school dropout here), your first point in the above paragraph is the precise reason to not worry too deeply about the depth versus breadth issue. If you follow your curiosity, then all subjects are eventually connected. As to that type of knowledge being useful in it's own right, I would like examples.

While subjects may be connected, it's not necessarily true that studying one will naturally lead you to study another. To use my example of mathematics and evolution: while a firm grasp of mathematics will help one to wrap their head around the probabilistic nature of evolution via natural selection, there is not a blatantly obvious connection such that studying mathematics would prompt one to investigate evolution or vice versa. In fact, typically the only way that these connections will be recognized at all is if the learner already has prior knowledge in both domains -- something that a mandatory curriculum would ensure.

As for your charge for examples; I think perhaps I threw you off by referring to "general" knowledge in that final sentence -- which is somewhat misleading in that it seems to be referring to the "breadth" idea -- when in fact I meant to be referring to knowledge from a particular field (in other words, that e.g., statistics and probability theory are useful to know even apart from the insights they may impart in understanding natural selection processes). I apologize if I was unclear.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

I don't think that there would be a need for a 'magical subject' if our love of learning wasn't crushed by an oppresive situation that stifles our natural, universal and innate desire to learn. To a three year old, the world is that magical subject.

That's great, but since the education of three year olds is not at stake here, how about we consider a twelve year old? The world is decidedly less magical at that age.

And on a side note, you've once again presupposed that mandatory education "stifles our desire to learn." And once again I'll point out that you simply can't back this statement up.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

Furthermore, children that didn't want to be there would not be there distracting classes and this would, in conjunction with having more teachers, lead to smaller class sizes.

Can't you see that this is precisely the problem?

Originally Posted by DuB

Although you haven't addressed several of the (in my opinion, crushing) points that I brought up, I'll respond to the ones that you did address.

I thought I addressed the major ones. I'll look again.

Originally Posted by DuB

Lots of assumptions here.

We only retain what interests us? There's no reason to believe that this is true. On the contrary, I've forgotten all sorts of things that I initially found fascinating, and retained as many other things that still bore me. Might retention be slanted toward favoring facts and concepts of personal interest to us? Sure, I'll grant you that. But this is a far cry from justifying your position that all other learning is in vain.

If you're granting it, i'm taking it, although I will admit it was sloppy wording on my part. Of the things that still bore you, how much of it do you find useful? As far as my claim that all other learning is in vain I would say that if it is not useful or interesting, then the onus is on you to support your claim that it is not in vain, not me to support that it is.

Originally Posted by DuB

You also presuppose that mandatory education extinguishes the love of learning. But the world is literally chock full of scholars who underwent years of mandatory education and then elected to continue learning -- not to mention grade school dropouts who never acquired a love of learning.

The first category is a deviation from the norm. What percentage of the population goes to graduate school? And is the pursuit of higher education for the love of learning or because it is commonly percieved as a prerequisite for material wealth? As to the second category, by the time you are old enough to drop out (I had to wait untill I was sixteen), the damage that I am postulating has already been done (assuming I'm right of course).

Originally Posted by DuB

While subjects may be connected, it's not necessarily true that studying one will naturally lead you to study another. To use my example of mathematics and evolution: while a firm grasp of mathematics will help one to wrap their head around the probabilistic nature of evolution via natural selection, there is not a blatantly obvious connection such that studying mathematics would prompt one to investigate evolution or vice versa. In fact, typically the only way that these connections will be recognized at all is if the learner already has prior knowledge in both domains -- something that a mandatory curriculum would ensure.

We are not talking about original research here. We are discussing learning. Most books worth their price will cover the connections that exist and the value to be gained from learning the other fields. Furthermore, interests change over time. It used to be that I couldn't get enough abstract algebra. Now I find myself increasingly drawn to neurology.

Originally Posted by DuB

As for your charge for examples; I think perhaps I threw you off by referring to "general" knowledge in that final sentence -- which is somewhat misleading in that it seems to be referring to the "breadth" idea -- when in fact I meant to be referring to knowledge from a particular field (in other words, that e.g., statistics and probability theory are useful to know even apart from the insights they may impart in understanding natural selection processes). I apologize if I was unclear.

I was not confused at all. I would like to know how statistics and probability theory are useful in their own right unless you happen to be interested in them for their own sake? Does anybody actually use them outside of academia, insurance companies and casinos?

Originally Posted by DuB

That's great, but since the education of three year olds is not at stake here, how about we consider a twelve year old? The world is decidedly less magical at that age.

By the age of twelve, the damage which I am assuming has already occured. The three year old grows into the twelve year old. Plus, I still have not been convinced that everybody needs to know all of this academic knowledge. So some twelve year olds want to play guitar. Great! Some want to play sports and study something when they get older to get a job. Great! They can work at a gas station in the mean time.

Originally Posted by DuB

And on a side note, you've once again presupposed that mandatory education "stifles our desire to learn." And once again I'll point out that you simply can't back this statement up.

Can't you see that this is precisely the problem?

I have to grant you that thread of your argument to the extent that I cannot present a peer reviewed paper supportings that claim. After many conversations with many different people, I believe it to be true anyway. I'll have to do some more research on it. Of course if I am wrong about that, then my whole argument collapses. If I am right about it, then I think that yours does. A good place to start would be to compare the reactions of children that have finished fifth grade going through montessori school to learning opportunities with those that have gone through the more traditional public schools. It's not going to be tonight though. It's 5:27 my time and I gotta crash. Good argument.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

I thought I addressed the major ones. I'll look again.

Please do.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

If you're granting it, i'm taking it, although I will admit it was sloppy wording on my part. Of the things that still bore you, how much of it do you find useful? As far as my claim that all other learning is in vain I would say that if it is not useful or interesting, then the onus is on you to support your claim that it is not in vain, not me to support that it is.

For starters, I found my experiences with the perennial breadth vs. depth debate useful in this very thread in pointing out a pitfall of self directed education. As another example I would say that the ability to do long division has proven very useful (e.g., for calculating my remaining car payments) despite not being a very exciting task. More generally, while there's no reasonable way for me to quantify what you're asking, I would vaguely guess that a significant proportion of my "boring" knowledge--though admittedly not all of it--has been useful to me at some time or another.

As for the part about learning in vain; you've just changed your position from stating that uninteresting material won't be retained--which I've already discussed is mistaken--to the position that learning something which is not useful is in vain. I would agree with this new assertion as being self evident; but I would also point out that it's impossible to determine in advance whether or not certain knowledge will later prove useful. Such an analysis can only be made in retrospect, and thus this position is rather meaningless.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

The first category is a deviation from the norm. What percentage of the population goes to graduate school? And is the pursuit of higher education for the love of learning or because it is commonly percieved as a prerequisite for material wealth? As to the second category, by the time you are old enough to drop out (I had to wait untill I was sixteen), the damage that I am postulating has already been done (assuming I'm right of course).

I was actually referring to any form of post high school education, including but not limited to graduate school. This may be a deviation from the norm in the sense that it's less than half, but it's a highly substantial proportion and not a trivial minority. I'll grant that the case of the grade school dropouts could be explained by your theory (although it doesn't explain you, does it? ), but I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss all those who pursue higher education as being interested in wealth rather than learning.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

I would like to know how statistics and probability theory are useful in their own right unless you happen to be interested in them for their own sake? Does anybody actually use them outside of academia, insurance companies and casinos?

You've just answered your own question. You're essentially asking, "Outside of domains where they are useful, when are they useful?"

Above issue aside, regarding statistics in particular, when you really get into it you can see statistical concepts almost everywhere--particularly regression to the mean, sampling issues, and bayesian inference. I won't get into the details of that though .

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

By the age of twelve, the damage which I am assuming has already occured. The three year old grows into the twelve year old. Plus, I still have not been convinced that everybody needs to know all of this academic knowledge. So some twelve year olds want to play guitar. Great! Some want to play sports and study something when they get older to get a job. Great! They can work at a gas station in the mean time.

So the assertion here is that the reason that twelve year olds are less inquisitive than three year olds is because of mandatory education? I would strongly disagree and say that three year olds' curious nature is part and parcel of the social/cognitive development happening at that age.

Regarding the need for academic knowledge, this goes back to my earlier point that you can't predict a priori what knowledge is going to be useful for an individual. What you can do is give them a good general education and then be confident that they will find much of that learning useful later in life.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

Good argument.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you're primarily playing devil's advocate here, but ditto nonetheless.

i don't think mandatory education is a mistake, but I do think it requires an overhaul

education is fraught with ambiguity.

I don't like the idea of education wanting a 'product' at the end of it, however we live in a world of processes that requires workers, trade/exchange, and effort. There is work to be done and people need to be schooled in some of the details.

However, there needs to be more flexibility in accommodating different personalities with different problems and aptitudes. Not all children are going to have the means to be scholarly and they would require some ingenious inclusive teaching to keep them interested and not feeling like a fool.

The schools are also getting too large - no wonder the kids are anxious about trying to fit in and not become a casualty... It's almost a kindergarten version of jail life for some kids.

I would like to see more of a swing somehow to having an emphasis on meaningful contribution to society and one's own life, rather than the conveyer belt to keep competing for resources, dog eat dog etc etc...

The social aspect of school is important because if they were just at home they would be isolated to some degree and if they were left to the streets they would fall into some kind of social order/drama anyhow.

It would be hard to find a solution...a lot of parents are getting more and more stuffed up too. A lot of the 'good parents' place themselves and their kids under a lot of pressure to do well, compete, etc. A lot of other parents can barely keep their own lives chugging along, they know they are screwed up, and they end up either ignoring the kids, blaming them, over indulging them, or trying to get the kids to grow up fast and look after themselves.

Maybe the solution is closer to home - maybe those that can, will change their attitude to school, this might help their children accept their limitations at school, and maybe extend themselves where they are able, maybe then those kids will grow up and have a more aware attitude to education etc etc

Huuuuuuge replies, of which I haven't read, so I'll throw in my 2c worth.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

This is, in my opinion, a true shame because kids come into the world as 'learning machines'. Should we scrap mandatory education and let the children that want to learn learn what they want? What is the benefit of it? Would letting children ask questions and lead their own education result in a better educated populace? Or am I just stupid?
[/LEFT]

I don't think children at this age are mature enough to make this decision. Education is important I think, and the social skills picked up in school also important, and it gives you the opportunity to find what you're really interested in as you mature. For example without school I might never have had an interest in Science and Computers, and might not be doing a job I love waking up to do. Being home schooled or having the decision to go to school, I'm sure I'd have made the wrong choice.

I made so many stupid mistakes when I was younger as a result of the wrong groups I was in where I lived, and my real lack of maturity - I'm making up for all of those mistakes and have done well now, but I think this kind of decision is one for parents, not children to make.

I know however, that the education system here is really bad - It could do with a new approach, but where do you start?

I do believe that mandatory education is something we should keep.

I have to admit, I am not very familiar with the english or the american school systems, but I have experience with the norwegian system, and the system which are in use in Steiner-schools.

The norwegian school system is similar to the others (I think), but in the equivilant of high school (videregående), you are given choises: Either you can crap the whole thing, or you can continue, following different directions (lack of better word...). I for one have chosen to study music, and i do believe that this direction has the most motivated students in the entire country. Each year we spend countless hours after school, preparing for musical projects and tests. We also had a project this spring, which culminated in a week of 12-hour days (including weekends) where we worked till sweat was running. Seriously. And did anyone hear complaints? No...

Those not so motivated as the musicians, often choose profession-based directions. The become mechanics and that kind of stuff. They have a very relaxed schedule, with short days and much free time.

So there is something for everyone. This system would have been quite good, if our worthless educational leaders didn't screw things up all the time

The second system, the one that i think is one of the best, is the Steiner school system. It's learnig techinques can be described with this: "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime". In steiner schools, you aren't given a mathematical formula to solve a problem, you are taught the principles of said formula, and learn to understand it and to use it in different ways. Ok, this may sound a bit too good. Of course there are downsides, like that you have som stuff that probably is quite useless and like all schools, there are many bad teachers there.

Ok. Norwegian and steiner schoolsystem propaganda off. What i think is that many schoolsystems could learn something from the steiner school system, and (maybe) from the norwegian. Take the good sides from both, and discard tha bad stuff. I do believe that there are quite much motivation in these school systems, and there have to be a reason for it.

Just my 2 øre

Let me just say this: mandatory schooling was, is, and always will be a tool for cultural assimilation.

I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by DuB

Please do.

I feel that points that I did not address are sub-points of ones that I did.

Originally Posted by DuB

As another example I would say that the ability to do long division has proven very useful (e.g., for calculating my remaining car payments) despite not being a very exciting task. More generally, while there's no reasonable way for me to quantify what you're asking, I would vaguely guess that a significant proportion of my "boring" knowledge--though admittedly not all of it--has been useful to me at some time or another.

When any cell phone has a calculator on it, I am expected to believe that long division justifies the torture of forced education in mathematics? How many people in their twenties that haven't taken recently taken a mathematics class could refute the statement that (a * b) * c = a * (b * c) = a * b * c is the commutative law or prove that their are an infinite amount of primes? My point is that many people would realize later in life, on their own terms, that this information has value and that they would take the steps to aquire it.

Originally Posted by DuB

As for the part about learning in vain; you've just changed your position from stating that uninteresting material won't be retained--which I've already discussed is mistaken--to the position that learning something which is not useful is in vain.

I would say that I haven't changed my position that much. What I said was:

"I fail to see what the intrinsic value of an academic education is to begin with if the information is not retained anyway. We retain what we are interested in and what we use on a regular basis."

I still stand by the statement that we retain what we use on a regular basis and that anything beyond that is to satisfy curiosity. I conceded that I was mistaken to say that we forget things that are useless and boring to us: call that wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by DuB

I would agree with this new assertion as being self evident; but I would also point out that it's impossible to determine in advance whether or not certain knowledge will later prove useful. Such an analysis can only be made in retrospect, and thus this position is rather meaningless.

It's not meaningless. One of the differences in our positions is that I have a strong respect for 'just in time' learning. If I need to learn something to do something that I want to do, then I learn it and do what I want to do. Otherwise, why waste time other than to satisfy curiosity? We don't need to go out into life loaded down with facts and ideas and, if my primary point is accurate, then this is harmful in the long run.

Originally Posted by DuB

...but I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss all those who pursue higher education as being interested in wealth rather than learning.

I certainly would not say all. I would say many. Many more are interested in social life. Many more still are doing what their parents are pressuring them into doing. More still are doing it because, having graduated from highschool, it is the easy and normal thing to do if their family has the means. A lot of people find something interesting to study in college, at least for electives, but I still maintain that for the majority, learning for the sake of learning is not their primary goal.

Originally Posted by DuB

You've just answered your own question. You're essentially asking, "Outside of domains where they are useful, when are they useful?"

Above issue aside, regarding statistics in particular, when you really get into it you can see statistical concepts almost everywhere--particularly regression to the mean, sampling issues, and bayesian inference. I won't get into the details of that though .

Agreed, we shouldn't get into the details: we've probably already hurt enough 'civilian' brains in this debate. That being said, the key phrase is "when you really get into it". Most kids that study it in school, memorize the formulas without looking at the derivations or proofs, forget it and then never consider it's implications on the generalisations that they draw in life, which is, to answer my own question, the biggest value that it has in a non-applied setting. Again, if somebody wants to do something with it, then they can learn it. If not, shoving it down their throat is unlikely to get them thinking about it in relation to their lives unless they have a 'good attitude' about it.

Originally Posted by DuB

So the assertion here is that the reason that twelve year olds are less inquisitive than three year olds is because of mandatory education? I would strongly disagree and say that three year olds' curious nature is part and parcel of the social/cognitive development happening at that age.

I do assert (without rigourous basis, as I have previously admitted) that that is part of it. It is also true that early childhood is the period in life where we are most geared towards learning. I do believe that curiosity is a gift that can be maintained throughout life and that our current education system crushes it like a banana company puts down organized labor. I would not expect a 12 year old to be as curious as a three year old. I would expect a 12 year old to be willing and able to seek out information that they found useful or interesting. If you can make it to twelve with that ability, then only your own raw intelligence and willingness to work presents an obstruction to your ability to learn whatever you have a desire or need to.

I am surely not advocating the abolishment of public education. I am also not advocating that children be handed an internet connection and a library card and told to get to work on their own. I do think that the function of a library and a school should be merged and that, in a less formal atmosphere, the teachers would be better able to find the interests of the children and relate those interests to academic knowledge. I furthermore believe that these facilities should be open to anyone regardless of age, educational accomplishments or immigration status.

At the end of the day, this boils down to the validity of my assertion that forced education stifles curiosity. That is the crux of the issue, in my opinion. I probably should have come to the debate packing academic backing.

Originally Posted by DuB

I have a sneaking suspicion that you're primarily playing devil's advocate here, but ditto nonetheless.

I assure you that I at least half believe everything I'm saying and that I fully believe that none of this will make any difference whatsoever.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

At the end of the day, this boils down to the validity of my assertion that forced education stifles curiosity. That is the crux of the issue, in my opinion.

It is a primary buttress of the argument, so I'll avoid addressing points that reduce to this unresolvable issue.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

I am surely not advocating the abolishment of public education.

Erm--you're not? Perhaps before we continue, you should clarify exactly what it is you are advocating. I've been arguing against the abolishment of mandatory, public education since my first post.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

I assure you that I at least half believe everything I'm saying and that I fully believe that none of this will make any difference whatsoever.

I am amenable to any idea which could benefit society, including that of repealing mandatory, public education, but truthfully you're going to have to make a better case than what you've made so far. I don't mean to offend, but as I understand it currently it suffers from questionable-at-best assumptions and rampant idealism.

Originally Posted by DuB

Erm--you're not? Perhaps before we continue, you should clarify exactly what it is you are advocating. I've been arguing against the abolishment of mandatory, public education since my first post.

well then carry on, I'm arguing for the abolishment of mandatory public education in favor of voluntary public education on the grounds that the concrete benefits (i.e. those with application) of education are best served by learning facts and techniques as the need arises.

Voluntary education would only work in a perfect society. You need a mandatory level of education at least so that people can tell what's right and what's wrong, can vote and read , etc etc.

People would already need to be educated enough to recognise the need for further education.

Btw, it's not only music that affects a child's development. I think you're partial because you haven't had much contact with the field. The consensus is that the more the child learns, and the sooner they do, the better. There are studies showing advanced correlation between bilinguality, instrument and dance classes, the use of right toys, precocious reading and high level of intellect in later life. I've discussed this with a sociologist, and we both agreed that the better schooling and more educational courses wealthier children have are responsible for the observed higher IQ in comparison to their less wealthy counterparts.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Voluntary education would only work in a perfect society. You need a mandatory level of education at least so that people can tell what's right and what's wrong, can vote and read , etc etc.

I see no benefit of education in determining what's right and wrong (Honestly, I think that those are abstractions with no basis in reality unless you want to recourse to 'god', a serious discussion of that is a little OT even for me. Knowing me, I'm sure I'll start a thread on it). Reading is essential. In our modern culture, I'm sure that, even if education was voluntary, most parents would use it as daycare anyway and those parents that wouldn't would most likely teach their children to read or send them them to school anyway because it was the right thing to do. At anyrate, I am willing to concede that a montessori style of school should be mandatory out to about fifth grade. As far as voting goes, I see no effect on public education to prevent elections from being anything other then a popularity contest. The tallest candidate normally wins for example.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Btw, it's not only music that affects a child's development.

I believe I made it clear in my original post, and DuB certaintly made it clear in the post that I linked to, that learning any skill has the benifits that he mentioned.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I think you're partial because you haven't had much contact with the field. The consensus is that the more the child learns, and the sooner they do, the better. There are studies showing advanced correlation between bilinguality, instrument and dance classes, the use of right toys, precocious reading and high level of intellect in later life. I've discussed this with a sociologist, and we both agreed that the better schooling and more educational courses wealthier children have are responsible for the observed higher IQ in comparison to their less wealthy counterparts.

I've had a fair amount of contact. Is your sociologist friend sure that diet isn't a key component as well? I'm not arguing that children shouldn't learn: I'm arguing that we have a terrible way of ensuring that that happens. As I said in another post, an informal contact between teachers and children would allow the teachers to discover the interests of children and relate academic knowledge to those interests. Is anyone going to deny that we learn best when we are genuinely interested in what it is we are learning? If the interest didn't take, no worries, keep the kids brain working on something else. Interests will inevitably change, at which point, the teacher could attempt to forge that connection again. Don't underestimate the value of 'just in time' learning.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

I see no benefit of education in determining what's right and wrong (Honestly, I think that those are abstractions with no basis in reality unless you want to recourse to 'god', a serious discussion of that is a little OT even for me. Knowing me, I'm sure I'll start a thread on it). Reading is essential. In our modern culture, I'm sure that, even if education was voluntary, most parents would use it as daycare anyway and those parents that wouldn't would most likely teach their children to read or send them them to school anyway because it was the right thing to do. At anyrate, I am willing to concede that a montessori style of school should be mandatory out to about fifth grade. As far as voting goes, I see no effect on public education to prevent elections from being anything other then a popularity contest. The tallest candidate normally wins for example.

What I mean by "right and wrong" is ethical laws, like not killing, not stealing, not abusing, not raping, and so much more

I've had a fair amount of contact. Is your sociologist friend sure that diet isn't a key component as well?

Diet is surely related. But I thought we both meant developed economies.

I'm not arguing that children shouldn't learn: I'm arguing that we have a terrible way of ensuring that that happens.

One would call the system Machiavellic. But it doesn't do harm to anyone, and it makes people smarter. What else did you expect from it? Or do you think you'd just want to learn trigonometry as a 12yo?

As I said in another post, an informal contact between teachers and children would allow the teachers to discover the interests of children and relate academic knowledge to those interests.

There are other ways to do that.

Is anyone going to deny that we learn best when we are genuinely interested in what it is we are learning?

That's the point of choosing your superior education, and in countries like the US, choosing school subjects. I didn't know what I liked until I turned 18 (one or two months ago).

Also, people who've had enough teachers would agree that how much you like a subject is 98,5% dependent on your teacher.

If the interest didn't take, no worries, keep the kids brain working on something else. Interests will inevitably change, at which point, the teacher could attempt to forge that connection again. Don't underestimate the value of 'just in time' learning.

Ok, so you wait for a to-be mathematics genius to feel the need to learn something, and not teach him things like geography or natural sciences? I think a perfect education system would be one which includes the current subjects as basics, and optional subjects as choices. Oh wait - that's what most good schools do. Also, many places offer varied courses and classes.

-

I'm not saying your idea isn't good. It is. But it's analogous to anarchy: would only work in a perfect society.

Uh oh. The unstoppable force has met the immovable object.

Aaron, I think we've taken our discussion about as far as it can go, so I'll back out for now. Glad to have you here at DV.