Why do we put children though school?

ClocksForward

WalterMitty wrote: »

The way things are going kids would be better off staying at home and learning off internet after age of say 15 or younger if child is mature. They can still sit exams before college. You can view some of worlds best teachers on youtube for free teaching things like maths and science that we badly need students to do in this country.
I found secondary school after junior cert just rote learning, boring religon and irish classses for several hours a week,everyone working out what would come up on exam rather than having any intellectual curiosity.
Even in university the standard of teaching was rarely excellent and you could do well without ever attending the university and just getting notes from your mates in the class. I can watch lectures online now for free from the best universities in world although ya cant get a degree without paying some university to award it to ya.

Your plan is nonsensical, not because it isn't logical and cost worth, but because it goes agaisnt the PC brigade and justifies jobs for a group of people who would not last a week in the private sector. Compulsory Education should be sufficient up to say 13. It worked for our ancestors, didn't it? There are fantastic teachers in the secondary system, but also alot of crap ones. Aren't 50% of maths teachers unqualified last time I checked? Only in Ireland. LOL

Chuck Stone

Yahew wrote: »

This isn't about you, quite rightly you say. You had a dad who read to you, and you liked to read. I was on a thread recently where people didn't learn to read, or didn't like reading. Even after school. Your dad was your teacher, for less fortunate children, the children of the working classes, teachers have to be teachers. And there are good teachers who turn people to mathematics, science, or literature - or whatever - and change their lives.

Good point. I was quite lucky to have had a Father who was interested in science and reading and stuff (a working class man btw)

Yahew wrote: »

well we had the dark ages, when things were unstructured and people were fairly non-productive.

Do you think that is the alternative to current educational systems?

Yahew wrote: »

The question was

1) what was society like before people went to school.
2) Answer was - the dark ages.

There was a long time between the dark ages and state schooling in it's current guise.

or that art increases because we have artists who have been schooled are founding that knowledge on fact.

Are you not contradicting yourself there? You said earlier, and I agreed, that creativity cannot be taught.

I have always found the proposition that art can be taught strange to say the least.

Yahew

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Saying calculus and poetry teaches children to solve real world problems takes some leap of faith.

No, it doesn't.

Some children will be bored by calculus and poetry but will still have problem solving skills.

And some people will get bored with anything. As for problem solving skills, there is an argument for more vocational subjects, I suppose.

Now if we're talking about computers and building bridges then yeah calculus among other mathematical strains would be good tools used to solve problems but ultimately it is the person himself not the tools that solve problems.

Its the person who has learned calculus or boolean equations who solves the problem. Very few kids are going to learn mathematics by themselves, it is not a typical autodidact subject. But were it not for these tools we would be in the dark ages.

Chuck Stone

Yahew wrote: »

for less fortunate children, the children of the working classes, teachers have to be teachers.

The working classes? You say that as if coming from a working class background is some sort of affliction. Being from a working class background myself I find that quite insulting.

And there are good teachers who turn people to mathematics, science, or literature - or whatever - and change their lives.

Yes and I would say the inspirational teachers are the exception rather than the rule.

There are shitty teachers who stunt the development of children and bore them to death. Currently there is no method of weeding out poorly performing teachers and that is a considerable flaw with the system.

Yahew

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you think that is the alternative to current educational systems?

I am hearing no alternatives here but home schooling. Subject to a curriculum that might work for some, but only the kids of an already interested elite.

There was a long time between the dark ages and state schooling in it's current guise.

The vibrant middle ages. Everybody who has moved the world on since the dark ages has had an education. The modern world depends on science, mathematics and technology

Are you not contradicting yourself there? You said earlier, and I agreed, that creativity cannot be taught.

It needs a foundation.

I have always found the proposition that art can be taught strange to say the least.

Again, it needs a foundation. The creativity can't be taught. The craft can be taught.

In general I would agree on two things from the other side of the debate.

1) School is too regimented.
2) Some people don't need to go past 16 ( I wouldn't say 12).


In terms of the regimentation. I speak in meetings quite a lot, and am rarely nervous. The only time I get a bit nervous is when the meeting is one of those where we go "Around the table" to discuss what our plans are. I find this kind of thing artificial anyway ( conversations don't run like that). I think it comes from school where some teachers asked questions around the class, and we nervously hoped we got an easy one.

Socialisation is very important. I rarely like only children, I find them weird. An only child schooled at home would be a monster.

Yahew

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The working classes? You say that as if coming from a working class background is some sort of affliction. Being from a working class background myself I find that quite insulting.

Yawn. Your working class father who read books and understood science is an anomaly - the question is why did he remain working class ( or how are you defining it?).

For most working class children where the parents are either less interested, or less academically inclined, and where there are no books lying around, getting the child interested in literature, history, or science - even if they have a natural talent - requires outside intervention. There is a massive amount of pedological literature on this.

Chuck Stone

Yahew wrote: »

(Art) needs a foundation.

I disagree. As you've said yourself art is not something that can be taught. Indeed if anything it can be suppressed by rigid systems if you listen to the TED talk by Ken Robinson.

Socialisation is very important.

It is important but socialisation is not really the goal of school. You could argue that there is as much negative impact on the psyche of children from the school environment as there is positive.

Yahew

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I disagree. As you've said yourself art is not something that can be taught. Indeed if anything it can be suppressed by rigid systems if you listen to the TED talk by Ken Robinson.

Ken Robinson is a guy with a theory. WE can only know that his system works if he ran a school. Since we both agree that creativity is innate, then I don't see how you can agree with him. All creative people in the world today have gone through the system he opposes, including himself.

By foundation I mean simple stuff, musical theory, some art theory. I acknowledge that some people can do this autodidactially. But not all.

It is important but socialisation is not really the goal of school. You could argue that there is as much negative impact on the psyche of children from the school environment as there is positive.

True, its hard on the timid, and the bullied, and the friendless. Schools need to do more on that, though.

El_Dangeroso

Yahew wrote: »

Yawn. Your working class father who read books and understood science is an anomaly - the question is why did he remain working class ( or how are you defining it?).

Ahh, you're trolling, just realised this. Carry on!

ClocksForward

Fbjm wrote: »

Without mental institutions for the mentally unfit, people like you would be roaming the streets, creating nonsensical threads on sites like boards and generally being a nuisance.

How can you determine "mentally unfit" as an absolute? You can't, it's defined by somebody who does not agree with how you live your live. That sounds like Facism to me. I suppose you would agree with eugenics and sterilisation of those who do not fit your profile? People like you sicken me.

Yahew

iguana wrote: »

Pretty much the minimum, afaik the guidelines are reasonably fluid. The child ideally needs to have literacy and numeracy at least in the lower end of it's age group (unless there are documented learning difficulties that the parent is making a demonstrable effort to meet the needs of such a child). They need to have a basic understanding of how the world works, Irish culture, basic history and geography, etc. It's as much of a check that the child isn't being abused or neglected as anything else.

In Ireland parents have a constitutional right to choose how their children are educated. Homeschooling or choosing a non-curriculum school like Steiner or Montessori is a right for every parent, though non-curriculum schools receive no state funding so parents have to cover the running costs of the schools, usually €2-3k a year per child.

I have no desire to send my children to a state school (this includes private schools that follow the state educational methods and curriculum and receive state funding). Ideally they will do Montessori until 12. If they then choose to go to state school they can, otherwise they can be home schooled. The Open University in the UK has a method of testing home educated teenagers and then passing them into the mainstream university system if they are considered good enough for their chosen courses, if they want to go to 3rd level. School is not a mandatory requirement for a third level education.

A curriculum is, however, since that is what will be tested. So you clearly contradict yourself.

( Does montessori run until 12? I thought it was pre-schooling only).

ClocksForward

Yahew wrote: »

A curriculum is, however, since that is what will be tested. So you clearly contradict yourself.

( Does montessori run until 12? I thought it was pre-schooling only).

Gee, I wasn't aware you could not learn "the curriculum" outside of a school How foolish is the person you quoted!!!

RichieC

Imagine we thought kids logic and critical thinking.. it would be anarchy!

Yahew

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ahh, you're trolling, just realised this. Carry on!

Am i? I think what I am saying is that there is a correlation between being middle class and having literate parents - and with them books, encyclopaedias, science magazines etc. - at home. This is as much trolling as saying the sky is blue.

( There are plenty of middle class university educated people who don't read, of course).

Now I could link to stats on this, but I feel it unnecessary googling.

Yahew

ClocksForward wrote: »

Gee, I wasn't aware you could not learn "the curriculum" outside of a school How foolish is the person you quoted!!!

Very, since she said she was opposed to teaching the "State curriculum", even in private schools.

Can you read?

Yahew

Which is what I am arguing for.

1) A State curriculum.
2) Schooling for most.

3) do it at home if you have the resources, and abilities.

However we have moved away from the OP. He demands to know why anybody needs any education past 12 years of age.

Chuck Stone

Yahew wrote: »

WE can only know that his system works if he ran a school.

I don't think he's proposing a new system in any mapped manner. He's proposing that alternatives be explored and children are allowed to gravitate towards their strengths rather than being forced to achieve minimum standards in a plethora of subjects that bore them and will serve little purpose in their well-being in the future.

Since we both agree that creativity is innate, then I don't see how you can agree with him. All creative people in the world today have gone through the system he opposes, including himself.

You're assuming that the system they came through was of great benefit to them - their achievements (not just academic, mind) may have been in spite of the system rather than because of any virtues it professes to have.

saa

I think every child should go to school, but after 14 or 15 if they are barely passing, have no subjects they are achieving in, no interest whatsoever what is the point in them just dropping out or leaving with a really bad leaving cert.

The junior/ leaving cert process just doesn't suit some people, I think if you want to focus on a certain skill that's fine but only for the minority who wouldn't be getting much out of D's and below in lower level subjects.

I know there is the L.C.A but there is still students who don't suit either that's fine, but its up to the child to decide where their contribution to society will be, their parents can't choose that path. Maybe we'll have to go back towards apprenticeships.

I think somethings going to have to change as college will become something for the privileged and I think the more children we force into an educational path that doesn't suit them the more of them that will become adults on the dole (as those low skilled jobs are in high demand by skilled folk)

nyarlothothep

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Because school is not about learning, it's about getting kids used to the mindless drudgery and routine of a 9-5 job. It's social compliance training.

Think about it, if you were given the freedom to learn about things you were truly interested in a non-structured environment for the first 17 years of your life and then told that you now had to sit down and be dictated to in a hierarchical fashion it would come as a bit of a shock. Can't have people thinking that there is a nicer way to live, what would happen to productivity in a nation full of independent thinkers?

I blame it on the fact that sensors outnumber intuitives

El_Dangeroso

Yahew wrote: »

Am i? I think what I am saying is that there is a correlation between being middle class and having literate parents - and with them books, encyclopaedias, science magazines etc. - at home. This is as much trolling as saying the sky is blue.

( There are plenty of middle class university educated people who don't read, of course).

Now I could link to stats on this, but I feel it unnecessary googling.

Your definition of intelligence is very narrow my friend. And your view of working class people is condescending/borderline insulting. School doesn't really change baseline intelligence all that much believe it or not. There's nothing magical about getting 1/30th or less of the attention of a disinterested public servant.

Yahew

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

LOL! Yes, the beginning of time was the dark ages. Again, yeesh.

Um, no. Not that it was much more productive prior to the middle ages, but they had schools in Rome and Greece.

You think the only way to learn anything is through a traditional school. You are wrong.

Didn't say that. I said it is the mechanism for most people.

Someone tell the thousands of people that homeschool their children that they have to be rich. Sorry but that statement is downright ignorant.

It is? How would normal people home school their children? How would a normal worker who comes in at 5-7pm homeschool. Part of the point of having teachers is that they are specialised in their subject, at least at secondary school. Would everybody, even had they time, be as proficient as a maths teacher and an English teacher, at home? Answer: no.

Re: shakespeare, the mind actually boggles. Quit trotting out that the only two options are going to a school or complete lack of education.

That was the case for shakespeare and it was the case for people of Shakespeare's class. His father was illiterate - so no home schooling, unless he could have afforded tutors. Of course that went on, aristocrats were home schooled. I am sure they were educated well. But thats my point about how home schoolers need to be rich.

If you said that there were no other options other than school because we need get young people used to submitting to authority and need somewhere to stash kids so both parents can contribute to GDP I'd say fair enough.

But why would I make your trite points for you?

Yahew

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Your definition of intelligence is very narrow my friend. And your view of working class people is condescending/borderline insulting. School doesn't really change baseline intelligence all that much believe it or not. .

First I didn't define intelligent at all in this entire thread. You are bringing up straw men.

Nobody is saying schooling changes baseline intelligence, it changes peoples access to books, and knowledge. This is exactly why schools are the most useful forms of social mobility - because smart working class people - like my Dad, for instance - move up through the system and become middle class.

These "insulting" ideas about the working classes? All historic socialist movements supported public schooling for the very equalising effects - the son of the bourgeois and the son of the factory worker are schooled together, rather than one with a tutor, and one with nothing. To this day socialists in Britain would like Public Schools ( i.e. private funded schools) to be abolished.

Home schooling is even more elite, historically, than Public Schools. Cry the crocodile tears somewhere else.

ClocksForward

Yahew wrote: »

First I didn't define intelligent at all in this entire thread. You are bringing up straw men.

Nobody is saying schooling changes baseline intelligence, it changes peoples access to books, and knowledge. This is exactly why schools are the most useful forms of social mobility - because smart working class people - like my Dad, for instance - move up through the system and become middle class.

These "insulting" ideas about the working classes? All historic socialist movements supported public schooling for the very equalising effects - the son of the bourgeois and the son of the factory worker are schooled together, rather than one with a tutor, and one with nothing. To this day socialists in Britain would like Public Schools ( i.e. private funded schools) to be abolished.

Home schooling is even more elite, historically, than Public Schools. Cry the crocodile tears somewhere else.

This is why I hate socialism so much:) Public school caters to the liberal mindset perfectly - disempower the individual and make them reliant on the system to the point where they aren't aware alternatives exist. A classic case of stockholm syndrome. I bet most people aren't even aware of the fact you are allowed to homeschool your child. Sad.

Yahew

Oh, christ. We are in a thread with libertarians.

( Why is libertarianism more popular as the capitalism system goes into a tail spin).

Pherekydes

ClocksForward wrote: »

This is why I hate socialism so much:) Public school caters to the liberal mindset perfectly...

Ah, the agenda reveals itself.

Yahew

ClocksForward wrote: »

This is why I hate socialism so much:) Public school caters to the liberal mindset perfectly - disempower the individual and make them reliant on the system to the point where they aren't aware alternatives exist. A classic case of stockholm syndrome. I bet most people aren't even aware of the fact you are allowed to homeschool your child. Sad.

The term "public school" could also apply to any fee paying elite school you probably are all in favour of. However most of the people who are arguing your point are probably "liberals" ( - a strange use of that term as socialist in Irish forum) opposed to the "hierarchical" nature of schooling.

As a centrist making a normal point I tend to bow out of threads populated by lunatics on both sides. I will however, make a statement of one word for the pro-home schooling liberals who don't believe we should not have a curriculum.

Creationism.

You are arguing for it, even if you don't realise it.

ClocksForward

Yahew wrote: »

Oh, christ. We are in a thread with libertarians.

( Why is libertarianism more popular as the capitalism system goes into a tail spin).

No, compulsory schooling should be an option. No country should exist entirely without state intervention to keep a leash on the private sector abuse, it's just that I forgot to mention I despise far reaching social practices.

Irish people are very much pro institution. A good balance is fine. We are leaning too far towards the left though. There isn't much incentive in this damm country to produce wealth for the individual. Political red tap everywhere. Sure look at the abuse O Leary gets for doing good:rolleyes:

I agree with socialism, as long as I get to keep my dignity. Private schools are more akin to homeschooling. At least in the sense you aren't obligated to attend one.

Chuck Stone

Yahew wrote: »

Oh, christ. We are in a thread with libertarians.

( Why is libertarianism more popular as the capitalism system goes into a tail spin).

That would be to presume there was anything resembling a capitalist system.

There wasn't.

Some free educayshun coming up in

3


2



1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC1sHqS9RoI

El_Dangeroso

Yahew wrote: »

Um, no. Not that it was much more productive prior to the middle ages, but they had schools in Rome and Greece.

You are proposing the straw man of school vs. no education. This is not what I am saying. Most school beyond basic useful skills of numeracy and literacy is just a state-sponsored baby-sitting service.

Yahew wrote: »

It is? How would normal people home school their children? How would a normal worker who comes in at 5-7pm homeschool. Part of the point of having teachers is that they are specialised in their subject, at least at secondary school. Would everybody, even had they time, be as proficient as a maths teacher and an English teacher, at home? Answer: no.

And tell me, how many children as a percentage go on to use quadratic equations or poetry in their adult lives, vs. how many children resented having to learn it in the first place? Taking a subject in a forced structured teaching environment is a great way to make sure that they never want to look at it again. I give you the Irish language as an example.

Most of what you learn in school is a massive waste of time and resources and the idea of a state-defined curriculum is so arrogant to think that every student wants to learn the same thing, in the same way. What is the point of learning something you have no aptitude for or interest in?

Most of the useful things I know I have learnt myself by actually doing them. Schooling is an incredibly inefficient method of learning anything.

ClocksForward

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Most of the useful things I know I have learnt myself by actually doing them. Schooling is an incredibly inefficient method of learning anything.

Very true. I recently picked up a book and taught myself differential calculus. 2 months later and
I now understand a topic I never picked up at all in school because the teachers were almost afraid
to teach it themselves

Most topics no matter how difficult can be learnt given sufficient time. Telling people they're stupid
and never going to succeed etc is abuse! We have teachers that are more concerned with pushing
their agenda and skewed views than actually teaching!

Public Schools really aren't held accountable to the same degree as say the tax man. They work with
hard figures, teachers work by filling kids heads with political mumbo jumbo(at least the bad ones, there
are wonderful teachers that slip through the cracks).

Leckywest

No doubt there is a lot of room for improving the curricula in schools - but it does have value in learning to read and basic arithmetic (if we propose to self-educate after that) as well as the free childcare and social interaction aspect which are beneficial to society. It also acts as a watchdog in so many cases where there are "problems" in the home that need to be brought to the attention of social services or special learning needs to be addressed.
It is idiotic in the extreme to let children grow up without schooling to create a huge range of social issues in the future.

mickrock

As others have said school is mainly a glorified child-minding service and a method of brainwashing them into believing that it's normal to spend most of their waking lives in the drudgery of a job.

Not only do they spend most of their day at school, they are then given homework that takes a couple of more hours of their lives. I feel sorry for them.

El_Dangeroso

ClocksForward wrote: »

Public Schools really aren't held accountable to the same degree as say the tax man. They work with
hard figures, teachers work by filling kids heads with political mumbo jumbo(at least the bad ones, there
are wonderful teachers that slip through the cracks).

Yep, and I know lots of people who work as teachers who are just as frustrated with the current system as many students are. Teaching something to people who have little interest is incredibly demoralising and many of them are burnt out after only a few years. Contrast that with someone I know involved in teaching adults English (who want to learn it) and they absolutely love their job.

El_Dangeroso

Leckywest wrote: »

No doubt there is a lot of room for improving the curricula in schools - but it does have value in learning to read and basic arithmetic (if we propose to self-educate after that) as well as the free childcare and social interaction aspect which are beneficial to society. It also acts as a watchdog in so many cases where there are "problems" in the home that need to be brought to the attention of social services or special learning needs to be addressed.
It is idiotic in the extreme to let children grow up without schooling to create a huge range of social issues in the future.

Again the options are not school vs. no education. It is totally possible to continue auto-didactically once the basics have been instilled. Think where you learnt most of your vocabulary, from interacting with people of different ages and backgrounds and reading, ie in the context of where they are useful, not from lists of words in a spelling book.

Chuck Stone

mickrock wrote: »

Not only do they spend most of their day at school, they are then given homework that takes a couple of more hours of their lives. I feel sorry for them.

A cruel and unusual punishment if ever there was one.

El_Dangeroso

And studies have shown that there is little association between the amount of homework given and academic achievement.

gbee

Broadly speaking, I'd agree. School is another level of control of populations and numbing down the masses so they believe stories a terrorist attack on the twin towers and then pay more taxes and accept less privacy for the privilege.

And it's staggering the amount of successful entrepreneurs who actually did not attend school or dropped out pursue work and money.

We have several examples at home and of course the US offers even more.

Leckywest

Yes, El_Dangeroso, I agree with you generally speaking - but would be majorly concerned about giving too much flexibility to those who would otherwise be too lazy or disinterested in their children (and there are lots of them) to send them to school regularly - preferring instead to let Jerry Springer educate them. The "administration" is there to protect the childrens needs (whether they believe it or not at the time) rather than out to punish parents.

ClocksForward

Why aren't secondary schools audited on a regular weekly basis? And when I mean audit, I don't mean an advance knowledge deal:rolleyes: I even remember a couple of teachers actually telling the students to at least look busy once the inspectors arrived!

Just to state again to anybody who might not have grasped my position: Primary school is absolutely essential.

iguana

Yahew wrote: »

A curriculum is, however, since that is what will be tested. So you clearly contradict yourself.

( Does montessori run until 12? I thought it was pre-schooling only).

No I don't. Following a state curriculum is in no way mandatory for entry to third level. There are plenty of work arounds for families who have no interest in factory educating for their children. You have clearly never looked into it. I have.

Montessori runs to 17 it's an education system not a pre-school system, it's just that there are only 5 or 6 full Montessori primaries in Ireland and the nearest secondary is in England.

4zn76tysfajdxp

The problems with schools in Ireland is that there isn't actually any educating being done at all, apart from teaching kids that conformity and learning shit off is the only road to happiness. All the subjects are taught by rote, Yeats wasn't on the paper last year so he'll come up this year and all that jazz. More effort is spent on making sure that the uniforms are on par than seeing if the students understand what's being taught.

My brother in law is a university lecturer and he's told me that in the last fifteen years, his first year students have become more and more stupid each year. They're able to retain information with study but they're totally incapable of independent thought and often make incredibly basic mistakes in the essays they hand up, like mispelling placenames and even their own names.

All schools teach is you need to learn this stuff to get a piece of paper with which you can get another piece of paper, with which you need a job. That's it.

iguana

amacachi wrote: »

School stopped me from reading what I wanted to and gradually wore away my love of reading.

Fuçk that's rough! I lost my love of science, especially astronomy which I was obsessed with, maths and history in school but to lose a love of reading? I can't imagine that. Did you get it back?

Gee Bag

ClocksForward wrote: »

Why aren't secondary schools audited on a regular weekly basis? And when I mean audit, I don't mean an advance knowledge deal.

Eh, if schools were audited every week then most teachers would probably cotton on to the fact that the inspector was going to be in at some stage thus constituting 'advanced warning'.

Would also be very, very, very expensive.

GeorgeBailey

Truley wrote: »

I think it's great that the idea Unschooling and Deschooling are becoming more popular and if I ever had children of my own I would seriously consider doing it.

You might think about doing it but you wouldn't actually do it.

My son started school in September and I hate it (he's happy enough). There are so many bloody rules to ensure all the kids conform and act in what they deem to be an acceptable manner and everyone is just a number. Whilst his creche did have rules it was a much more relaxed place where the kids could be themselves.
The one positive about school (apart from reading, ritin and rithmatic) is that kids mingle with other kids their own age and make friends. For that one thing alone I would never want my son home-schooled.

iguana

Gee Bag wrote: »

Would also be very, very, very expensive.

There is little more expensive to a society than a badly educated next generation of adults.

ClocksForward

I love how the hardcore left is constantly complaining about the evils of capitalism when the school system itself is vastly flawed. Why, because these people treat it like the price of a commodity - no different from the price of a carton of milk. Oh, you got a 68, yet you can't string a coherent argument together to save your life:mad:

Hypocritical much? Jesus, I literally shudder when I think about those years. If only I could erase the memory of that period from my brain:)

ClocksForward

For example, when I buy a carton of milk for a fixed amount of money, I expect a relation between two numbers. When it comes to education, it's a joke. How would you consider a simple integer to be a fair representation of somebodies actual mastery of the subject(at least in non math courses)?:eek:

Notice when the bordering on propoganda textbooks state opinion as an absolute. I mean come on, what meaning can be derived from saying somebody got a B in CSPE. In my mind, the student simply licked arse and gave the "correct" answers(ie what the examiner wanted to hear) instead of actually formulating their own arguments. Not to mention buying less stress books(plagiarism etc etc). Telling the kids to learn by rote is a farce. No if's or but's here.

Solnskaya

Fbjm wrote: »

Without secondary school, no one would go to university.
Without university, no one would get degrees.
Without degrees, no one would get jobs.
Without jobs, no one would be working in mental institutions, for the mentally unfit.
Without mental institutions for the mentally unfit, people like you would be roaming the streets, creating nonsensical threads on sites like boards and generally being a nuisance.

yeah, because a job is what we all want, right:rolleyes:
Most successful people I know have feck all education, and personally I'd rather swim in shark infested water with a kipper tied to my flute than "get a jorb".
I paid next to no attention to what the stiffs in the school were trying to cram down our necks and read what I wanted to in the school library, using my head to ensure I spent as little time as was humanly possible stuck in the building. Jobs are what they are, but I don't want one myself thanks. I prefer deciding what to do with my time myself. A waste of 7 years is how I view secondary school. Sadly, most people want someone to tell them what to do for a large chunk of the day, hence schools, hence jobs. Also, hence why anyone who disagrees with formal education is "just being stupid". I can't wait for my kids to be old enough to leave and come along with me so they learn to make a living for themselves.

Oracle

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Because school is not about learning, it's about getting kids used to the mindless drudgery and routine of a 9-5 job. It's social compliance training.

Think about it, if you were given the freedom to learn about things you were truly interested in a non-structured environment for the first 17 years of your life and then told that you now had to sit down and be dictated to in a hierarchical fashion it would come as a bit of a shock. Can't have people thinking that there is a nicer way to live, what would happen to productivity in a nation full of independent thinkers?

Yeah, that's just about it in a nutshell. John Taylor Gatto writes very eloquently about this. Also Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt has other insights about the same topic.

30Min

I loved school. From differentiation to Prometheus Bound and denatured enzymes.

When I look back, I am still amazed at the vast amount of information I was exposed to.

I wouldn't change it for a second.