Thread: Is mandatory education a mistake?

I didn't mind replying to each piece individually, because most of my answers would be the same.

I don't think the current system blocks creativity or curiosity. In fact, I was always curious about what I had to learn at school.
What I mean is, you can only appreciate a good wine, you've you're studied and tried wines for long enough.

I didn't say that having more opportunities as a child is the sole thing responsible for a greater intelligence. There are around 50 observed statistic correlations between intelligence and something else. To name a few; myopia, scepticism, thinner body built, income. I had a link with a lot on this topic, but I can't find it now.

Trigonometry is the most beautiful and interesting thing I ever learned. If you don't know trigonometry, you don't know mathematics.


The teacher-liking thing is something I took from friends of mine who've had several teachers teaching the same subject. "I used to hate this subject, but now I love it", they say. I'm pretty sure you could easily find research about this.

So you think it's okay not to teach geography because most people don't know much anyway? Oh, I had an impression you actually wanted to make the educational system better, not worse.
Some things are fundamental for your formation as a citizen and human being. We wouldn't want people voting on dictators in the future. You probably don't realize how much you've already learned to be the person you are now - you probably think you were born that way.

Implanting anarchy in human societies is like throwing a piece of red meat to wolves and saying "don't eat".

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I don't think the current system blocks creativity or curiosity. In fact, I was always curious about what I had to learn at school.
What I mean is, you can only appreciate a good wine, you've you're studied and tried wines for long enough.

I think that you, myself and all the people that care to have this conversation are in the minority that do enjoy learning.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Trigonometry is the most beautiful and interesting thing I ever learned. If you don't know trigonometry, you don't know mathematics.

It is very pretty. analysis is even prettier.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

So you think it's okay not to teach geography because most people don't know much anyway? Oh, I had an impression you actually wanted to make the educational system better, not worse.

I don't see how cramming geography down someones throat at a young age is going to improve the education system. The fact that most adults do not retain the information is proof of that in my mind at least. I'm not saying that one would not ideally understand geography, I'm just saying that forcing them to learn is more often then not going to result in them memorizing facts for tests and then forgetting them. I see no benefit to that.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Some things are fundamental for your formation as a citizen and human being. We wouldn't want people voting on dictators in the future.

If the dictator were taller then the other canidate then he would probably win even with an education system like the one that I am advocating against having been in place for at least a century. This is a big part of my argument that if you are the type of person that is going to learn and take your civic responsibility seriously, then you will go to school regardless. If you are not, then it won't do a damn bit of good to shove it down your throat. The saying is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Why drag the whole educations system down with kids that don't want to learn anyway. Let them work in gas stations and let a high school degree mean something other than "I did my time and I'm not stupid". It's getting to the point where a college degree just means, "I did my time and I'm not stupid" and you have to go to graduate school do distinguish yourself. This is 'achieved' by lowering our standard for education to the lowest denominator. In fifty years, they'll have to invent something beyond the phd because half of the population will be getting those! I believe that it is a foolish thing to do for very little perceptible gain.

It works great for the for-profit institutions of higher learning however....

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You probably don't realize how much you've already learned to be the person you are now - you probably think you were born that way.

I am fully cognizant of how much I learned to be the person that I am today.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Implanting anarchy in human societies is like throwing a piece of red meat to wolves and saying "don't eat".

We'll agree to disagree about that. I'm sure a thread will come up about it at some point. Hope to see you there.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

I don't see how cramming geography down someones throat at a young age is going to improve the education system. The fact that most adults do not retain the information is proof of that in my mind at least. I'm not saying that one would not ideally understand geography, I'm just saying that forcing them to learn is more often then not going to result in them memorizing facts for tests and then forgetting them. I see no benefit to that.

Teaching people varied things when young is what gives these people intelligence. Also, the like for learnign is taught as well (though from a very young age). The nearly absolute majority of intelligence is acquired, not innate. It has to do with a vast field of neurosciences - I could expand on this later on if you'd like..

Saying you are gonna die sooner or later is no excuse not to improve the health system.

If the dictator were taller then the other canidate then he would probably win even with an education system like the one that I am advocating against having been in place for at least a century. This is a big part of my argument that if you are the type of person that is going to learn and take your civic responsibility seriously, then you will go to school regardless. If you are not, then it won't do a damn bit of good to shove it down your throat. The saying is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Why drag the whole educations system down with kids that don't want to learn anyway. Let them work in gas stations and let a high school degree mean something other than "I did my time and I'm not stupid". It's getting to the point where a college degree just means, "I did my time and I'm not stupid" and you have to go to graduate school do distinguish yourself. This is 'achieved' by lowering our standard for education to the lowest denominator. In fifty years, they'll have to invent something beyond the phd because half of the population will be getting those! I believe that it is a foolish thing to do for very little perceptible gain.

Let us just not teach people how to do something right, because they're gonna do it wrong anyway. Oh yeah, you convince me now.

The analogy to horses doesn't apply. You can't make someone love chemistry, to the point of developing some revolutionary thing, but you can teach them enugh to be well-educated. You can't expect a world made only of geniuses.

The stupidity of high-schooled people doesn't have to do with the fundaments of learning, but with bad parenting, bad teachers, and bad future prospects.


The thing about PhDs and graduations is that people with a higher diploma get paid more. It's a conflict of interest. I know the condition of this is worse in the US than in Brazil, though.
However, you must admit that the amount of acquired human knowledge increases each day, and students have to learn more and more through the generations. Even with a perfect educational system, it's a natural tendency of education levels to get outdated.

I am fully cognizant of how much I learned to be the person that I am today.

I just don't think you realize it fully. have you heard of wolf boys? You wouldn't be much different from those without education.

We'll agree to disagree about that. I'm sure a thread will come up about it at some point. Hope to see you there.

Just tell me you are not a libertarian, and we'll be fine.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Teaching people varied things when young is what gives these people intelligence. Also, the like for learnign is taught as well (though from a very young age). The nearly absolute majority of intelligence is acquired, not innate. It has to do with a vast field of neurosciences - I could expand on this later on if you'd like..

please do!

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Saying you are gonna die sooner or later is no excuse not to improve the health system.

That's not a good analogy for what I'm talking about. Within that analogy however, there is not point in spending time or money to improve the health system if it is not going to let people live better lives.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Let us just not teach people how to do something right, because they're gonna do it wrong anyway. Oh yeah, you convince me now.

I don't understand the problem with that statement. It's like telling people that they can't smoke weed when they are going to do it anyway.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The analogy to horses doesn't apply. You can't make someone love chemistry, to the point of developing some revolutionary thing, but you can teach them enugh to be well-educated. You can't expect a world made only of geniuses.

I don't expect a world made of geniuses. All I'm saying is that you can only teach them chemistry if they want to learn. Otherwise, they will memorize some facts, regurgitate them and forget them the moment the exam is over. What has been accomplished other then time and money wasted that could have been spent on those kids that want to learn chemistry, either for the subject itself or because the want access to some application of chemistry?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The stupidity of high-schooled people doesn't have to do with the fundaments of learning, but with bad parenting, bad teachers, and bad future prospects.

A lot of those play a key role but that's besides the point. If they want to learn, then they will. If they don't then they wont. There are a lot of people that come from very difficult circumstances and still go on to achieve great things or at least a happy life. It is a matter of drive. Furthermore, high school "civics" classes give a grossly distorted view of US history that furthermore complicates the situation.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The thing about PhDs and graduations is that people with a higher diploma get paid more. It's a conflict of interest. I know the condition of this is worse in the US than in Brazil, though.

The reason for this is that they have more jobs available to them. I read an article in newsweek several years ago. I wish I could find it but one part of it stuck out in my mind. I'll put the whole things in quotes. The part in bold is what I can quote verbatim.

We are increasingly requiring graduate degrees for our positions because we find that more and more, four years of college is barely enough to undo the damage caused by highschool

Originally Posted by Kromoh

However, you must admit that the amount of acquired human knowledge increases each day, and students have to learn more and more through the generations. Even with a perfect educational system, it's a natural tendency of education levels to get outdated.

While it is true that human knowledge increases every day, most of this increase is in specialized areas of study. Even there, there is refinement. More general theories arise that simply contain more information by being applicable to more problems. The quote i mentioned above probably has more to do with this. The age at which a doctorate is typically obtained has not changed much through the ages.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I just don't think you realize it fully. have you heard of wolf boys? You wouldn't be much different from those without education.

I am familiar with wolf boys. That comes from a complete lack of human socialization which is miles away from what I am talking about. The vast bulk or your anscestors never had an education and every single one of them managed to reproduce. A wolf boy could never do that as far as we know. Their social and language centers are just too atrophed.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Just tell me you are not a libertarian, and we'll be fine.

We're half fine I'm a libertarian socialist. I agree with the libertarians as long as they are talking about individual rights and I agree with the socialists/greens as long as they are talking about major corporations. Thats just a fancy way of saying anarchist though. You could say that I went so far to the left that I came back around to the right on some issues.

Originally Posted by aaronasterling

please do!

To keep it short: Your brain has reached the highest amount of synapses when you're 2yo. Then, a selective process comes into play, strengthening the synapses you use mostly, and breaking the ones you don't. This is the time geniuses are made: the more things you practice and have contact with, the better you'll get at multiple things. If you focus solely on one thing, you'll be a genius in that area. And if you don't learn... well, then you become part of the majority.

I don't understand the problem with that statement. It's like telling people that they can't smoke weed when they are going to do it anyway.

There is no point in telling people not to smoke weed. The most you can do is teach them the hazards smoking it may provoke (which are much less than alcohol and cigarettes btw), and give the person the ability to make a conscious option.

I don't expect a world made of geniuses. All I'm saying is that you can only teach them chemistry if they want to learn. Otherwise, they will memorize some facts, regurgitate them and forget them the moment the exam is over. What has been accomplished other then time and money wasted that could have been spent on those kids that want to learn chemistry, either for the subject itself or because the want access to some application of chemistry?

I don't think they will just memorize the subject and forget it when the exam is over. Not if the teacher is nice and manages to teach in a way that keeps people interested. You aren't born with preferences, you acquire them - most of the time by empathy and misempathy with the teacher teaching the subject. More as an example than as proof: I used to hate botanics at school. During the prep course I'm having a terrific teacher and now love the subject.

A lot of those play a key role but that's besides the point. If they want to learn, then they will. If they don't then they wont. There are a lot of people that come from very difficult circumstances and still go on to achieve great things or at least a happy life. It is a matter of drive. Furthermore, high school "civics" classes give a grossly distorted view of US history that furthermore complicates the situation.

People aren't born wanting to learn or not. Actually, they aren't even in position to judge if what school teaches them is important or not. Analogy: you have to go all the way down a road to know if the trip was worth it or not.

Also, I never said the teaching of history in the US is fine. I agree with you it's terrible.

The reason for this is that they have more jobs available to them. I read an article in newsweek several years ago. I wish I could find it but one part of it stuck out in my mind. I'll put the whole things in quotes. The part in bold is what I can quote verbatim.

Doesn't mean it's right, it's just an opinion. Just because people who finish high school are stupid doesn't mean it's the educational system's fault. If they are already stupid the way it is, imagine them without it.

While it is true that human knowledge increases every day, most of this increase is in specialized areas of study. Even there, there is refinement. More general theories arise that simply contain more information by being applicable to more problems. The quote i mentioned above probably has more to do with this. The age at which a doctorate is typically obtained has not changed much through the ages.

Yes, the age a doctorate is acquire may not have changed, but the amount you have to study to acquire it has. Contrarily, the subjects taught in high school haven't changed in decades.

I am familiar with wolf boys. That comes from a complete lack of human socialization which is miles away from what I am talking about. The vast bulk or your anscestors never had an education and every single one of them managed to reproduce. A wolf boy could never do that as far as we know. Their social and language centers are just too atrophed.

You mean about reproducing alone? Oh come on, my dog doesn't speak a word of English and can reproduce pretty well. I was a bit extremist talking about wolf boys, yeah. How many illiterate people do you know? Again, I'm not saying your reasoning isn't (at least partially) right, I'm saying you don't know the real facts that well.

We're half fine I'm a libertarian socialist. I agree with the libertarians as long as they are talking about individual rights and I agree with the socialists/greens as long as they are talking about major corporations. Thats just a fancy way of saying anarchist though. You could say that I went so far to the left that I came back around to the right on some issues.

No, we're not fine. That entire paragraph just to admit you're a libertarian and make it look nice. A libertarian society will be like a game with no rules. You think people are just not gonna kill each other because they are nice? News for you: people are very far from nice. The few that are are very well taught to be so by their parents, schooling system, and society. I won't even get started on the bad economical liberalism does.