Then you disagree with the entire system of education in the UK.
I guess so. The US, too. Most countries, probably.
What you miss out on is the period before specialisation, where kids are given education in a wide range, yes of mandatory subjects, so they get both a basic grounding in things we consider important in the world (geography, history, languages, and now technology), before they choose the direction they're going to take.
I didn't miss out on that. As I've already made clear, I disagree with that type of 'education'. Forcing everyone to take classes just because they're unsure of what to do is not how I think things should work. Unless it's going to be used by most everyone, I think it should be optional.
Then you disagree with the idea of a wide, general education for the young, which I said several posts up.
If you mean a "wide, forced general education for the young," then yes.
It's obvious you disagree with something, but it seems to be the entire idea of teaching kids a variety of fields and skills, in favour of having very narrow, self selected learning for 10 year olds!
Above, I said that simpler things (basic math, etc) should be taught earlier on. In high school, you should (more or less) be able to choose what you want to do, aside from a few things that most everyone will need. I think this class should be available in high school, but optional. Or perhaps even earlier, but again, optional.
Hey kids - look! Physics! Is not anywhere near adequate to introduce kids to it properly, you need a couple of years.
Again, that can be said about anything.
But I'm sorry, that's the best they're going to get. They can do their own research, or if they feel it's the slightest bit interesting to them (or if they're curious), they can take the classes. This really isn't enough of a reason for me to say that people should be forced to take these classes just because some people are uncertain or ignorant.
Then you're an idiot because TFA is talking about much younger kids.
Obviously not what I'm talking about. I think it should be obvious that I disagree with this decision.
Besides, in both New York and Colorado it was clearly demonstrated that online schools were much less effective than the regular public schools you think are garbage.
It may have been clearly demonstrated that that was the case... for some people. I don't doubt that many people will do better in classes than online, though. All I said was that that's not the case for everyone. Different people learn in different ways.
Every school I've seen relies on grading systems and test scores (as if that is all that matters), and make mandatory many subjects that most people will never use upon people. Things like No Child Left Behind only seem to worsen the situation.
I do agree that some schools are better than others.
And yet if we don't introduce kids to these things, how will they get a taste of them and know if they want to learn?
I thought I've already answered something similar? "Not that difficult, really. Informing someone of the existence of something doesn't require forcing them to take a mandatory class (not even to show them what it's like). Not to mention that that could be said about anything."
Merely introducing someone to something isn't the same thing as forcing them to take a class. Perhaps the school could help them determine what classes they want to take, and perhaps show them a bit of the material (aside from doing their own research about it).
I'm mainly talking about high-school, by the way. The simpler things (basic math and such) could be taught early on. And if they fail to take the classes that they'll need in the future? Too bad for them. They can deal with it in the future (with the option to take classes that they need).
"Advanced Math" is in no way equivalent to a few logic puzzles and some animation using a teaching language/toolkit, as has been suggested.
When I said that, I just meant that I was against things such as trigonometry, calculus, etc being mandatory. Or anything like it. Things that a majority of people likely won't use.
It was just an example.
instead you've basically revealed that you don't believe in education.
I don't believe I've revealed any such thing. I believe all I've revealed is the fact that I'm against mandatory classes that teach subjects that the majority of people won't use. If they want to take them, then the classes should be there for them to take (optional).
Another problem I see are people who think that SOPA will only affect people they may see as evil, evil "criminals." I've seen normal people who support SOPA merely because it claims that it will stop the 'evil' pirates (and, of course, artists, too). Forget abuses of power or collateral damage, it claims that it'll stop all the criminals!
For which they need to know that it exists, and be exposed to it at a basic level.
Not that difficult, really. Informing someone of the existence of something doesn't require forcing them to take a mandatory class (not even to show them what it's like). Not to mention that that could be said about anything.
1) Equating the moving of a few things round a screen in an educational language with "advanced math" is just flat-out wrong.
What?
2) Most people will never use physics, chemistry, biology, foreign languages or anything else in their McJob, why don't we just leave them all pig ignorant? So much easier.
I agree. Why not just leave them ignorant of those subjects (unless they need them/want to take them)?
No. Education, training... I don't care. You might not view it as a waste of time, but I do. It's a subjective matter.
The bottom line is, I do not think that people should be forced to take classes that teach knowledge that a majority are not likely to use. If the majority aren't likely to use the knowledge, then I think the classes should be optional.
I don't care if it is true that some of these classes magically make people super intelligent even if they never use the knowledge and forget it a year later, I think they should be optional.
Building your "thinking muscles" is never a loss because you can always retarget to something else, synthesize something new, etc.
"Never a loss"? That's your opinion. It's a waste of time to me. Time that I could've used to learn something that I will actually need/am interested in.
And yet we teach physics to every student who may or may not be engineer, and teach art to every student who may or may not be artist.
And I disagree with that, too. What matters to me is how likely the average person is going to use the knowledge after school is over. Basic math? I think it'd be pretty difficult to get around without that, so there's an example of something that I think should be mandatory.
Teaching basic, simple programming is useful because it can introduce it to students who might just find it fun but might not discover it otherwise.
Then they can take an optional class and discover it for themselves. If they don't, too bad for them.
but everyone has to learn it, because its excellent logical/mental training for hard science related work.
I hear people say things such as this often. "X is mandatory because it makes people smarter even if they forget it and never use it." I don't think the effects of it are going to be that great, and even if they were, it's their 'loss'. I don't think everyone should be forced to take classes that 'teach' things that most people simply aren't likely to use in the future. It takes away time from things that they actually care about/need to use.
And this is where you fail. They may know nothing about it.
Then they can try it for themselves.
I don't believe that advanced math or things such as this should be mandatory. It seems like a complete waste of time to me (since many people aren't likely to ever use it).
It's why all those "DRM can always be cracked, somehow" comments are stupid too. The main purpose is to make it harder for casual people.
It's not much harder for casual people when only one person needs to crack it before you can just install the crack. I think all but the most idiotic users can follow a few simple instructions.
That isn't quite the direction I think it should head to. I just meant that I think the current public 'education' system is awful. Especially later on (such as in high school). I think there's too much focus on rote memorization, grades, and test scores (as well as too much focus on unnecessary classes).
Whether it works or not really depends on the person and how they learn.
I do think the public educational system right now is absolute garbage. And I definitely think that they put too much emphasis on higher grades and tests.
Lobbying is basically people banding together and expressing their opinion with promises of campaign money.
Well, I guess saying that they're going to give them campaign money would be speech. But I don't think that actually giving them money is speech (just like punching someone in the face probably isn't speech).
Slashdot Mirror
Then you disagree with the entire system of education in the UK.
I guess so. The US, too. Most countries, probably.
What you miss out on is the period before specialisation, where kids are given education in a wide range, yes of mandatory subjects, so they get both a basic grounding in things we consider important in the world (geography, history, languages, and now technology), before they choose the direction they're going to take.
I didn't miss out on that. As I've already made clear, I disagree with that type of 'education'. Forcing everyone to take classes just because they're unsure of what to do is not how I think things should work. Unless it's going to be used by most everyone, I think it should be optional.
If they miss out on that, then too bad for them.
Then you disagree with the idea of a wide, general education for the young, which I said several posts up.
If you mean a "wide, forced general education for the young," then yes.
It's obvious you disagree with something, but it seems to be the entire idea of teaching kids a variety of fields and skills, in favour of having very narrow, self selected learning for 10 year olds!
Above, I said that simpler things (basic math, etc) should be taught earlier on. In high school, you should (more or less) be able to choose what you want to do, aside from a few things that most everyone will need. I think this class should be available in high school, but optional. Or perhaps even earlier, but again, optional.
Hey kids - look! Physics! Is not anywhere near adequate to introduce kids to it properly, you need a couple of years.
Again, that can be said about anything.
But I'm sorry, that's the best they're going to get. They can do their own research, or if they feel it's the slightest bit interesting to them (or if they're curious), they can take the classes. This really isn't enough of a reason for me to say that people should be forced to take these classes just because some people are uncertain or ignorant.
Then you're an idiot because TFA is talking about much younger kids.
Obviously not what I'm talking about. I think it should be obvious that I disagree with this decision.
Besides, in both New York and Colorado it was clearly demonstrated that online schools were much less effective than the regular public schools you think are garbage.
It may have been clearly demonstrated that that was the case... for some people. I don't doubt that many people will do better in classes than online, though. All I said was that that's not the case for everyone. Different people learn in different ways.
Every school I've seen relies on grading systems and test scores (as if that is all that matters), and make mandatory many subjects that most people will never use upon people. Things like No Child Left Behind only seem to worsen the situation.
I do agree that some schools are better than others.
And yet if we don't introduce kids to these things, how will they get a taste of them and know if they want to learn?
I thought I've already answered something similar? "Not that difficult, really. Informing someone of the existence of something doesn't require forcing them to take a mandatory class (not even to show them what it's like). Not to mention that that could be said about anything."
Merely introducing someone to something isn't the same thing as forcing them to take a class. Perhaps the school could help them determine what classes they want to take, and perhaps show them a bit of the material (aside from doing their own research about it).
I'm mainly talking about high-school, by the way. The simpler things (basic math and such) could be taught early on. And if they fail to take the classes that they'll need in the future? Too bad for them. They can deal with it in the future (with the option to take classes that they need).
"Advanced Math" is in no way equivalent to a few logic puzzles and some animation using a teaching language/toolkit, as has been suggested.
When I said that, I just meant that I was against things such as trigonometry, calculus, etc being mandatory. Or anything like it. Things that a majority of people likely won't use.
It was just an example.
instead you've basically revealed that you don't believe in education.
I don't believe I've revealed any such thing. I believe all I've revealed is the fact that I'm against mandatory classes that teach subjects that the majority of people won't use. If they want to take them, then the classes should be there for them to take (optional).
Another problem I see are people who think that SOPA will only affect people they may see as evil, evil "criminals." I've seen normal people who support SOPA merely because it claims that it will stop the 'evil' pirates (and, of course, artists, too). Forget abuses of power or collateral damage, it claims that it'll stop all the criminals!
For which they need to know that it exists, and be exposed to it at a basic level.
Not that difficult, really. Informing someone of the existence of something doesn't require forcing them to take a mandatory class (not even to show them what it's like). Not to mention that that could be said about anything.
1) Equating the moving of a few things round a screen in an educational language with "advanced math" is just flat-out wrong.
What?
2) Most people will never use physics, chemistry, biology, foreign languages or anything else in their McJob, why don't we just leave them all pig ignorant? So much easier.
I agree. Why not just leave them ignorant of those subjects (unless they need them/want to take them)?
I'd say you're both right.
Classic confusion of education vs training.
No. Education, training... I don't care. You might not view it as a waste of time, but I do. It's a subjective matter.
The bottom line is, I do not think that people should be forced to take classes that teach knowledge that a majority are not likely to use. If the majority aren't likely to use the knowledge, then I think the classes should be optional.
I don't care if it is true that some of these classes magically make people super intelligent even if they never use the knowledge and forget it a year later, I think they should be optional.
Building your "thinking muscles" is never a loss because you can always retarget to something else, synthesize something new, etc.
"Never a loss"? That's your opinion. It's a waste of time to me. Time that I could've used to learn something that I will actually need/am interested in.
Assuming you meant "should be illegal."
Everyone agrees that hiring a hitman is illegal.
Oh? Do they now? Can you prove that?
Because I don't.
then everyone here would probably think it a good thing to take the site down.
Not really.
And yet we teach physics to every student who may or may not be engineer, and teach art to every student who may or may not be artist.
And I disagree with that, too. What matters to me is how likely the average person is going to use the knowledge after school is over. Basic math? I think it'd be pretty difficult to get around without that, so there's an example of something that I think should be mandatory.
Teaching basic, simple programming is useful because it can introduce it to students who might just find it fun but might not discover it otherwise.
Then they can take an optional class and discover it for themselves. If they don't, too bad for them.
but everyone has to learn it, because its excellent logical/mental training for hard science related work.
I hear people say things such as this often. "X is mandatory because it makes people smarter even if they forget it and never use it." I don't think the effects of it are going to be that great, and even if they were, it's their 'loss'. I don't think everyone should be forced to take classes that 'teach' things that most people simply aren't likely to use in the future. It takes away time from things that they actually care about/need to use.
And this is where you fail. They may know nothing about it.
Then they can try it for themselves.
I don't believe that advanced math or things such as this should be mandatory. It seems like a complete waste of time to me (since many people aren't likely to ever use it).
I don't see it as any different from a foundation in algebra , geometry etc
Neither do I. I don't believe those should be mandatory, either.
Those who don't have just learned some basic logic.
And I doubt there's any noticeable improvement. They'll likely forget whatever they learned if they don't use it or aren't interested, anyway.
It's why all those "DRM can always be cracked, somehow" comments are stupid too. The main purpose is to make it harder for casual people.
It's not much harder for casual people when only one person needs to crack it before you can just install the crack. I think all but the most idiotic users can follow a few simple instructions.
That isn't quite the direction I think it should head to. I just meant that I think the current public 'education' system is awful. Especially later on (such as in high school). I think there's too much focus on rote memorization, grades, and test scores (as well as too much focus on unnecessary classes).
High school is supposed to prepare you for entry into the workforce
And never mind actual education. All that matters is that you're ready to be part of the workforce.
Whether it works or not really depends on the person and how they learn.
I do think the public educational system right now is absolute garbage. And I definitely think that they put too much emphasis on higher grades and tests.
There are jobs that just won't even talk to a person that doesn't have a degree.
That... is brilliant! Well done! How did they ever come up with such an intelligent move?
(let's just say people might think they know why these guys are opposed, and it's not for the right reasons)
Yeah, the average person would probably ignore all of their arguments and just attack their characters. I think they're pretty good at that.
Why would you want to avoid the TSA? What are you hiding?
You must be a criminal!
Lobbying is basically people banding together and expressing their opinion with promises of campaign money.
Well, I guess saying that they're going to give them campaign money would be speech. But I don't think that actually giving them money is speech (just like punching someone in the face probably isn't speech).