And, of course, this is based off of anecdotal evidence and generalizations. I could conclude that all public schools are bad and that homeschooling is good if I went that route.
Most people will be required to navigate such environments, at one time or another.
Mostly due to their own choices, and they'll be interacting with a group of people that is truly diverse (not just people their own age).
Moreover, whether they can avoid interacting with people or not, society benefits when all of its members at least can interact with them.
I don't think there are many people that can't interact out of necessity.
Homeschoolers fail too.
I never said they didn't. They do. I don't believe homeschooling is right for everyone, but you did say that schools produce some successes. I wondered if it was strictly because of them, or in spite of them.
My feeling is that both can be adequate, but that communal schools offer a better potential maximum outcome for society at large
They're better in certain cases in that they're convenient, universal, and if the school is good, the students will probably actually learn. Not everyone can homeschool their kids, but I do have to wonder what the result would be if they could.
So in that sense of "adjustment", I do think that public schools are better when they expose students to a larger (and more diverse) peer group.
The problem is that it feels artificial and that you're forced into the environment. Not to mention that being locked in a building isn't the only way to interact with others (even a diverse group of people). In real life, you might not find you need to interact with those "diverse" group of people much at all, for instance.
In general, my point was that public schools offer ample success stories.
Because of schools, or in spite of them? What of all the failures?
it is not a necessary for successful outcomes.
I do agree with that. Some motivated individuals will probably be successful no matter what.
Rather, I believe that fostering critical thinking, curiosity and creativity along with socialization should be the priorities at these ages.
Which I believe is something the current school system is totally failing to do. Not all schools, but I believe many of them are (and No Child Left Behind certainly isn't helping). Then there's the fact that not everyone learns the same way.
I was simply asking a question I felt was relevant: assuming most people truly are well-adjusted and successful, is that because of public school? Would they be better if they were home schooled (the problem is not all parents would be able to home school their children)?
As did I. Looking back at it, I'm not satisfied with the result at all. Teaching to the test was shockingly common, and there wasn't much that I or others actually learned from it (aside from simple things such as basic math, which is indeed useful).
In a society, where common institutions fail, the community organizes to fix them.
Assuming you have the support of those around you. Assuming that your child learns the same way as everyone else. Education isn't a one-size-fits-all package, and that may very well be the reason for homeschooling.
The problem with this approach is that large numbers of people can be completely ignorant of the problem, and it can be extremely difficult to organize them.
Parents with a keen interest in teaching beyond the common standards can always do so in their own time.
Yes, after much wasted time in the school system where rote memorization and blind obedience to authority is prevalent. If they have that much time on their hands, then I believe homeschooling or hiring a tutor would be the best option. The latter if they're not confident they can do it themselves.
I'd say it's a fairly decent question. It asks why it "should." As if there is some sort of being that decided that that's the way it "should" be.
A standard education ensures that a child is able to function in society with the basic knowledge required to function in the group.
It teaches many things that aren't so basic, such as chemistry. The way it's taught now, I'd be willing to bet that much of the information isn't even retained for a year.
If you feel the standard is inadequate, it's fully within your purview to augment the standard with additional tutoring or education.
Yeah, after they've already arrived home after around seven hours of rote memorization and blind obedience to authority figures.
Learning to stand up to bullies and solve that problem is a very important part of growing up.
But typically being locked in a building with others your own age isn't. That is not the only way to learn how to socialize.
then you run the risk of being one of these kids who commit suicide when they are bullied in facebook.
Strange... I wonder how many of those people went to public school? From what I've seen, it's usually done by the very same people that they go to school with. For some reason, they were still unable to learn to cope with bullies and such.
Perhaps there is simply something different about these people?
I'm not the only one who believes that parents that aren't specifically trained to replace the teachers their children would normally encounter in a public/private school *shouldn't* be allowed to home school.
Then I'm sure most wouldn't be allowed to home school. Even the parents who technically aren't "qualified" but still are able to teach their children well. Nice job punishing everyone.
And public schools are often quite abysmal in my experience. There seems to be less of a focus on true understanding and more of a focus on mindless recollection of facts to pass tests. I have heard there are still some good public schools, though.
You are doing nothing but a HUGE disservice to your child(ren) by keeping them from their peers, sheltered from the world, and away from opinions that are different from yours. We all *NEED* these kinds of interactions in order to better cope with the world when we become adults and move out on our own.
As if locking someone in a building is the only way to learn how to socialize. As if everyone needs to socialize in those specific ways.
If their schools really are falling behind in some way, it's *THE PARENTS FAULT* for not being involved.
I agree that parents should probably be more involved, but it is also very much the school's fault. They're there to educate, and if they're failing that and instead teaching to the test, I would very much blame them (and uninvolved parents).
Oh no, by all means keep the special little egg in its basket until adulthood because CERTAINLY the real world never calls you names, beats you up or fucks you over repeatedly.
Yes, sending him into an environment where herd mentality reigns supreme sounds highly educational.
And being locked in a building is the only way to socialize, and socializing with others is always necessary.
Public school is probably the best place to start learning that not everyone likes you and rarely (if ever) do things go your way.
Far too many parents keep their children out of the school system because of their fears that their little cherub is going to be corrupted, but then neglect to do anything but read the bible to them.
For the "good of society," I do like home school. Partly because I believe individual freedoms are important, and partly because I believe it's a good solution if schools are inadequate or downright terrible.
People will continue to focus on "woman's rights" in a discussion primarily about whether or not the thing being killed has a right to live
Some people feel a women should have a right to control her own body more than the infant should have a right to stick around in her womb. It's mere preference.
If you could somehow remove the baby and keep it alive, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Just as long as the mother can remove it.
as if we would EVER talk about Jack the Ripper's right to choose to kill, but somehow its DIFFERENT when the human in question is inside another's womb.
And to them, it may very well be different. In fact, it is different, because it is a different situation. It's just your own opinion that the differences are irrelevant (assuming that's your opinion). If you're looking for a magical moral fairy to swoop down from the sky and decide what view on abortion is objectively correct, that very likely isn't going to happen. It's more than likely based on opinions. That's not even going into intent...
I guess the fact that its MORE dependent and helpless makes it more worthy of death?
That would depend on who you ask.
Youll find that on certain issues dear to the subscribers hearts, all reason and rationality will be abandoned.
I don't know what you mean, but people do seem to believe that their opponents are just irrational fools.
everyone here was outraged when people took the code
"everyone"? Interesting generalization. Some people view the GPL as a necessity as long as copyright exists, however. That doesn't mean they want copyright as a whole to exist, though.
You are an asshole, I don't care if you like it or not. You're also an idiot.
You're a stupid-head, I don't care if you like it or not. You're also an idiot. There, you're defeated!
Actually, you might very well have something to hide. Especially when the people commanding those doing the surveillance are the same ones who make the laws. And even that assumes the government doesn't break its own laws. Yes, I have much to hide from the government, but I don't believe I'm doing a single thing that's wrong.
I believe few plan for their government to become corrupt...
Philosophers have pretty thoroughly debunked the idea that morality requires a magical entity.
Maybe. I don't see how else it could exist, but that doesn't mean it doesn't. Still, to my knowledge, there's no evidence of absolute morals, and even less evidence of which things are moral and immoral.
The far more interesting question was, "Were they?"
Since it's about justification, I'd say it's subjective.
Even if the movie industry only made movies he enjoyed I predict he'd still not want to pay for them.
Perhaps.
Even he knows its wrong, hence the nonsensical arguments to attempt to justify it.
He "knows" it's wrong? Wrong in what way? That, to me, implies that there is some magical entity that exists that not only determines what is right and wrong, but also has told someone exactly what is right and wrong. But I really didn't see him implying any such thing. To him, the arguments he used could be perfectly valid, and I suspect you're only playing the "you know in your heart that you're wrong" card.
Sociopathic? I don't think that means what you think it means.
I've seen quite a few people who label anyone who disagrees with them as "sociopaths." If you say something someone else finds objectionable, it hurts their feelings, and you don't care, apparently that makes you a sociopath (even if there are indeed other people you actually do care about). Basically, if you don't let your own actions be controlled by everyone else's emotions, you're a sociopath. The internet psychologists said so.
Stop trying to make school fun. You are doing it wrong.
Yes! Make it boring, monotonous, and grueling! That will instantly solve all of our problems, and we'll finally have an educated populace. While we're at it, let's continue to instill within the students an unquestioning obedience to arbitrary authority figures. They're just slaves, after all.
His current solution has him watching crappy movies too.
But not wasting money on them.
"Inadequate" sums up every element of his argument.
Subjective.
In your opinion.
I was testing you to see if you really believed what you said was a fact (because you did state it as a fact) or if it was a simple error. I do not believe it was pointless, though you're free to believe so. Constantly repeating that it's my opinion won't change my mind about anything, though, so I don't know what you hope to gain from that other than trying to demonstrate that you believe that it was pointless when I mentioned it. Point received: I don't care.
What do you mean? Leaving it up to the parents? In my state, it couldn't be simpler to get out of public school. All you have to do is ask your parents to tell the school that you're homeschooling (or something such as that), and you'll never be bothered by them again.
I do believe the option to homeschool is important in case public schools are awful. Taking away the option or making it difficult because of some religious people is, I feel, idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's a good alternative.
And, of course, this is based off of anecdotal evidence and generalizations. I could conclude that all public schools are bad and that homeschooling is good if I went that route.
Most people will be required to navigate such environments, at one time or another.
Mostly due to their own choices, and they'll be interacting with a group of people that is truly diverse (not just people their own age).
Moreover, whether they can avoid interacting with people or not, society benefits when all of its members at least can interact with them.
I don't think there are many people that can't interact out of necessity.
Homeschoolers fail too.
I never said they didn't. They do. I don't believe homeschooling is right for everyone, but you did say that schools produce some successes. I wondered if it was strictly because of them, or in spite of them.
My feeling is that both can be adequate, but that communal schools offer a better potential maximum outcome for society at large
They're better in certain cases in that they're convenient, universal, and if the school is good, the students will probably actually learn. Not everyone can homeschool their kids, but I do have to wonder what the result would be if they could.
So in that sense of "adjustment", I do think that public schools are better when they expose students to a larger (and more diverse) peer group.
The problem is that it feels artificial and that you're forced into the environment. Not to mention that being locked in a building isn't the only way to interact with others (even a diverse group of people). In real life, you might not find you need to interact with those "diverse" group of people much at all, for instance.
In general, my point was that public schools offer ample success stories.
Because of schools, or in spite of them? What of all the failures?
it is not a necessary for successful outcomes.
I do agree with that. Some motivated individuals will probably be successful no matter what.
Rather, I believe that fostering critical thinking, curiosity and creativity along with socialization should be the priorities at these ages.
Which I believe is something the current school system is totally failing to do. Not all schools, but I believe many of them are (and No Child Left Behind certainly isn't helping). Then there's the fact that not everyone learns the same way.
I wasn't home schooled.
I was simply asking a question I felt was relevant: assuming most people truly are well-adjusted and successful, is that because of public school? Would they be better if they were home schooled (the problem is not all parents would be able to home school their children)?
(granted, I went to public schools)
As did I. Looking back at it, I'm not satisfied with the result at all. Teaching to the test was shockingly common, and there wasn't much that I or others actually learned from it (aside from simple things such as basic math, which is indeed useful).
In a society, where common institutions fail, the community organizes to fix them.
Assuming you have the support of those around you. Assuming that your child learns the same way as everyone else. Education isn't a one-size-fits-all package, and that may very well be the reason for homeschooling.
The problem with this approach is that large numbers of people can be completely ignorant of the problem, and it can be extremely difficult to organize them.
Parents with a keen interest in teaching beyond the common standards can always do so in their own time.
Yes, after much wasted time in the school system where rote memorization and blind obedience to authority is prevalent. If they have that much time on their hands, then I believe homeschooling or hiring a tutor would be the best option. The latter if they're not confident they can do it themselves.
This question in itself is shockingly ignorant.
I'd say it's a fairly decent question. It asks why it "should." As if there is some sort of being that decided that that's the way it "should" be.
A standard education ensures that a child is able to function in society with the basic knowledge required to function in the group.
It teaches many things that aren't so basic, such as chemistry. The way it's taught now, I'd be willing to bet that much of the information isn't even retained for a year.
If you feel the standard is inadequate, it's fully within your purview to augment the standard with additional tutoring or education.
Yeah, after they've already arrived home after around seven hours of rote memorization and blind obedience to authority figures.
On the other hand, the vast majority of well-adjusted, successful (or just decent) people are not home-schooled, no?
That's probably because most people are forced into public school. Do we have any idea what it'd be like if most people were home schooled?
Learning to stand up to bullies and solve that problem is a very important part of growing up.
But typically being locked in a building with others your own age isn't. That is not the only way to learn how to socialize.
then you run the risk of being one of these kids who commit suicide when they are bullied in facebook.
Strange... I wonder how many of those people went to public school? From what I've seen, it's usually done by the very same people that they go to school with. For some reason, they were still unable to learn to cope with bullies and such.
Perhaps there is simply something different about these people?
I'm not the only one who believes that parents that aren't specifically trained to replace the teachers their children would normally encounter in a public/private school *shouldn't* be allowed to home school.
Then I'm sure most wouldn't be allowed to home school. Even the parents who technically aren't "qualified" but still are able to teach their children well. Nice job punishing everyone.
And public schools are often quite abysmal in my experience. There seems to be less of a focus on true understanding and more of a focus on mindless recollection of facts to pass tests. I have heard there are still some good public schools, though.
You are doing nothing but a HUGE disservice to your child(ren) by keeping them from their peers, sheltered from the world, and away from opinions that are different from yours. We all *NEED* these kinds of interactions in order to better cope with the world when we become adults and move out on our own.
As if locking someone in a building is the only way to learn how to socialize. As if everyone needs to socialize in those specific ways.
If their schools really are falling behind in some way, it's *THE PARENTS FAULT* for not being involved.
I agree that parents should probably be more involved, but it is also very much the school's fault. They're there to educate, and if they're failing that and instead teaching to the test, I would very much blame them (and uninvolved parents).
Oh no, by all means keep the special little egg in its basket until adulthood because CERTAINLY the real world never calls you names, beats you up or fucks you over repeatedly.
Yes, sending him into an environment where herd mentality reigns supreme sounds highly educational.
And being locked in a building is the only way to socialize, and socializing with others is always necessary.
Public school is probably the best place to start learning that not everyone likes you and rarely (if ever) do things go your way.
But that's completely obvious.
You seem to be the exception, not the rule.
Far too many parents keep their children out of the school system because of their fears that their little cherub is going to be corrupted, but then neglect to do anything but read the bible to them.
Source?
For the good of society
For the "good of society," I do like home school. Partly because I believe individual freedoms are important, and partly because I believe it's a good solution if schools are inadequate or downright terrible.
People will continue to focus on "woman's rights" in a discussion primarily about whether or not the thing being killed has a right to live
Some people feel a women should have a right to control her own body more than the infant should have a right to stick around in her womb. It's mere preference.
If you could somehow remove the baby and keep it alive, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Just as long as the mother can remove it.
as if we would EVER talk about Jack the Ripper's right to choose to kill, but somehow its DIFFERENT when the human in question is inside another's womb.
And to them, it may very well be different. In fact, it is different, because it is a different situation. It's just your own opinion that the differences are irrelevant (assuming that's your opinion). If you're looking for a magical moral fairy to swoop down from the sky and decide what view on abortion is objectively correct, that very likely isn't going to happen. It's more than likely based on opinions. That's not even going into intent...
I guess the fact that its MORE dependent and helpless makes it more worthy of death?
That would depend on who you ask.
Youll find that on certain issues dear to the subscribers hearts, all reason and rationality will be abandoned.
I don't know what you mean, but people do seem to believe that their opponents are just irrational fools.
everyone here was outraged when people took the code
"everyone"? Interesting generalization. Some people view the GPL as a necessity as long as copyright exists, however. That doesn't mean they want copyright as a whole to exist, though.
You are an asshole, I don't care if you like it or not. You're also an idiot.
You're a stupid-head, I don't care if you like it or not. You're also an idiot. There, you're defeated!
Basically the school doesn't want all their grads to be fat fucks or scrawny nerds with no physical health.
Likely won't help unless they want to change themselves.
Can you really consider yourself educated if you have no idea about healthy exercise habits?
That's not something you need to take a class for. All that information is easily available.
$99 for a keying license vs Sony's policy of simply not allowing other OSes ... I'd say, lesser of two evils.
What does Sony have to do with it? Are those the only two options, or am I missing something?
Actually, you might very well have something to hide. Especially when the people commanding those doing the surveillance are the same ones who make the laws. And even that assumes the government doesn't break its own laws. Yes, I have much to hide from the government, but I don't believe I'm doing a single thing that's wrong.
I believe few plan for their government to become corrupt...
Philosophers have pretty thoroughly debunked the idea that morality requires a magical entity.
Maybe. I don't see how else it could exist, but that doesn't mean it doesn't. Still, to my knowledge, there's no evidence of absolute morals, and even less evidence of which things are moral and immoral.
The far more interesting question was, "Were they?"
Since it's about justification, I'd say it's subjective.
Even if the movie industry only made movies he enjoyed I predict he'd still not want to pay for them.
Perhaps.
Even he knows its wrong, hence the nonsensical arguments to attempt to justify it.
He "knows" it's wrong? Wrong in what way? That, to me, implies that there is some magical entity that exists that not only determines what is right and wrong, but also has told someone exactly what is right and wrong. But I really didn't see him implying any such thing. To him, the arguments he used could be perfectly valid, and I suspect you're only playing the "you know in your heart that you're wrong" card.
Sociopathic? I don't think that means what you think it means.
I've seen quite a few people who label anyone who disagrees with them as "sociopaths." If you say something someone else finds objectionable, it hurts their feelings, and you don't care, apparently that makes you a sociopath (even if there are indeed other people you actually do care about). Basically, if you don't let your own actions be controlled by everyone else's emotions, you're a sociopath. The internet psychologists said so.
Stop trying to make school fun. You are doing it wrong.
Yes! Make it boring, monotonous, and grueling! That will instantly solve all of our problems, and we'll finally have an educated populace. While we're at it, let's continue to instill within the students an unquestioning obedience to arbitrary authority figures. They're just slaves, after all.
He could also just not watch them.
That is an option, but I doubt that's what he wants to do.
Save his money and retain the moral high ground.
Perhaps he doesn't believe he ever lost the "moral high ground" to begin with.
Parents are the problem
If schools are teaching to the test, then I'd say that schools are also a big problem.
It's a bad thing to teach only the test
Which appears to be what happens in many places.
it beats teaching nothing.
And getting punched in the face is probably better than getting killed. Doesn't mean that either are a good thing.
His current solution has him watching crappy movies too.
But not wasting money on them.
"Inadequate" sums up every element of his argument.
Subjective.
In your opinion.
I was testing you to see if you really believed what you said was a fact (because you did state it as a fact) or if it was a simple error. I do not believe it was pointless, though you're free to believe so. Constantly repeating that it's my opinion won't change my mind about anything, though, so I don't know what you hope to gain from that other than trying to demonstrate that you believe that it was pointless when I mentioned it. Point received: I don't care.
2) Make going to school non-compulsory
What do you mean? Leaving it up to the parents? In my state, it couldn't be simpler to get out of public school. All you have to do is ask your parents to tell the school that you're homeschooling (or something such as that), and you'll never be bothered by them again.
I do believe the option to homeschool is important in case public schools are awful. Taking away the option or making it difficult because of some religious people is, I feel, idiotic.