Slashdot Mirror
Finland's Education System Supersedes "Subjects" With "Topics"
jones_supa writes Finland is about to embark on one of the most radical education reform programs ever undertaken by a nation state – scrapping traditional "teaching by subject" in favor of "teaching by topic". The motivation to do this is to prepare people better for working life. For instance, a teenager studying a vocational course might take "cafeteria services" lessons, which would include elements of maths, languages, writing skills and communication skills. More academic pupils would be taught cross-subject topics such as the European Union — which would merge elements of economics, history, languages and geography. There will also be a more collaborative teaching approach, with pupils working in smaller groups to solve problems while improving their communication skills.
Let's not be hyperbolic. While it's clear that you don't like what they're doing, can you point to anything they're doing that is actually illegal? Because that R in RICO refers to racketeering, and while they are indeed organized (which is their right under the First Amendment, since we have freedom of association) and do at times place their own interest ahead of those whom they are supposed to be serving (which is true of all of us, to some extent), you would be hard-pressed to argue that everyday schoolteachers are active participants in organized crime.
It's hard to have a reasonable discussion about the actual problems when you're practically Godwin-ing this conversation by implying schoolteachers bear such striking similarities to the Mafia that they deserve to be prosecuted using the same set of laws.
It was called vocational education, and it prepared people for skilled blue collar work. The purpose-driven approach wasn't really geared toward a liberal education or to prepare students for self-determined careers, but it did prepare people to work in auto repair shops, to fix HVAC systems, and so forth. It is not clear to me how the Helsinki system will prepare students for university work in liberal arts, sciences without immediate/clear applications, philosophy and mathematics, and so on. I assume they've thought about it, but I don't get it.
It should be a concern.
If you have never experienced the clear, exacting system of thought in physics, mathematics or chemistry, you will always be an IDIOT who can be sold ANYTHING. You will be completely at the mercy of the person selling you some shit or some truth or a mix of both.
Clear thinking is based on standing of the shoulders of great scientists, not by standing on the shoulders of some AgitProp faggots and their paymasters in finance.
The purpose of college is to give you a better life, make you a better human. Although it's true that many people go there merely to increase their salary, the wise professors are supposed to guide and open the eyes of their pupils.
Focusing so much on 'working life' can lead to a seriously deficient education.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Bullshit. I refuse to let the ignorant decide what's right and wrong. You should too.
I am from Sweden, a neighbouring country to Finland. 30 years ago, we reformed our school system to death (communitybased instead of state based, allowing private profit-driven enterprises and so on). Our results have kept dropping and dropping ever since, and it seems it will only keep on this way. We admire Finland; They have the great results we used to have. I really hope their politicians don't disrupt their system with unneccesary and untested reforms.
why do we have unions?
because there is no balance of power in the workplace without them, and workers will be impoverished without that balance
this is not a theoretical assertion on my point, this is american history: the gilded age and robber barons, the birth of the labor movement because the working class was being fucking shafted
look at jobs without unions benefits, and they pay shit, with shit benefits. that's what you want?
unions indeed introduce a whole new spectrum of abuses, that is true
but i assert to you that whole spectrum of abuses is smaller than the bullshit the plutocrats got away with a hundred years ago, and want to get away with again, because morons like you believe "right to work" propaganda and lies in your ignorance of american history. you want us to learn the painful labor lessons all over again
i never understood conservatives who argue against unions and universal healthcare. unless you are a rich asshole. otherwise, you're basically arguing for your own impoverishment, and are too stupid to understand that. plutocrats call you "useful fools." they buy media channels to keep you adequately outraged over moronic half lies and red herring topics. fed bullshit, kept in the dark, unleashed on the voting booths, outraged over simpleton depictions of complex topics, voting happily for those who work hard to make you poorer so a few of their rich friends can make yet more than they deserve, weakening the american economy overall
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As a Finn I can confirm that most of the education related articles about Finland are complete BS. This is mostly because the so called "journalists" can't be bothered to verify absolutely anything these days. Let's just say that nothing's really changed and someone from the local education committee of Helsinki is just trying to put frosting on a turd and sell it as a cake.
Why do I need a union?
Unions lobby the government to make them pass laws that make your work life more enjoyable even if you don't belong to one. This is needed to counter balance the lobbying power of the employers. For example, if fire breaks out at the place where you work, most probably you'll find fire extinguishers and emergency exits, and this fact is not due to your employer's benevolence or your professionality: your employer would be compelled by market forces to make you work in a dangerous place, if there weren't laws in place preventing malevolent employers from competing with him.
I'm not impoverished, despite you saying I should be without a union...
You don't need to be a communist to actually believe in the role of unions: the IMF, certainly not a lair of leftists, found out that inequality and poverty rise when the power of unions falls.