4 ms·

Education main goal is not about any practical skills, and most definitely not about "employment" and all that. Education got a far more important role.

by sklogic 11y ago

lsc 11y ago
You realize that this sounds very elitist to people who didn't go to college, right?
- sklogic 11y ago
  Did I ever say "college education"? I'm talking about all of the existing tiers of education, with the early school being the most important. And the very fact that all the shit like "practical skills" and "employment prospects" are starting to corrode even the primary school is extremely worrying.
  - lsc 11y ago
    This is one of those cases where what you are saying, exactly isn't quite what the other person hears. Sort of like how if you speak of a "real american" most people assume you are a racist regardless of your actual intent. Maybe it's not what you are saying, but what I hear (and I think this is likely commonly heard) is "formal education makes you better" in the same way that a British person of 100 years ago might have said that being of good birth makes you better. At that point, it sounds to me mostly like a class division, e.g. your parents had the time and money to educate you in ways that won't provide returns in terms of your own income. I mean, I'm not saying that's what you are saying or even what you meant to say. I'm just pointing out what it sounds like to a group you probably have little contact with. Further, as someone who is a fan of things like history and philosophy, aside from, well, being more entertaining to me, I don't think you can form a coherent argument that a person like me who knows a lot about the history of philosophy is "better" than a person who knows a lot about the history of, say, American Football or ice hockey. I mean, it's a cultural marker, that's for sure; I'm much more likely to want to be around the philosopher than the sports fan, but is the philosophy fan better in any meaningful sense? I'm going to say no.
    - sklogic 11y ago
      > "formal education makes you better" Any kind of education (unless it's a cargo cult education) makes you better, that's the entire point of it. > "better" than a person who knows a lot about the history of, say, American Football or ice hockey. Sports are good for education - and they're not practical and not earnings-oriented. How many of those who had a passion for sport in school went into a professional sport? I am not opposing sport, STEM, music, arts, whatever else - I'm opposing an emphasis on any "practical skills" in general.
      - lsc 11y ago
        I... don't really understand how sports are good for education. I mean, I understand why exercise is good for education, but following sports doesn't involve exercise. >I am not opposing sport, STEM, music, arts, whatever else - I'm opposing an emphasis on any "practical skills" in general. So what standard do you have for "better"? Do you have any standard for "better" or "good"? would memorizing random strings of numbers, then, make a person "better"?
        sklogic 11y ago
        Any systematic excercise of a willpower is good. Education, even in its most boring and irrelevant forms, is a willpower excercise and therefore is making one a better person - more resilient, more self-reliant, more capable of further educating themselves. That very role of education I was talking about is preserving the accumulated knowledge of our civilisation. As it grows, an amount of general education everybody must withstand grow too. And instead there is a disgusting trend of simplification. I would prefer to see a civilisation of polymaths rather than a civilisation of narrowly trained craftsmen.
        lsc 11y ago
        >I would prefer to see a civilisation of polymaths rather than a civilisation of narrowly trained craftsmen. If you think that doing things gives you a more narrow education than taking classes... I suggest you spend more time with people who do things.

Education main goal is not about any practical skills, and most definitely not about "employment" and all that. Education got a far more important role.

by sklogic 11y ago

Education main goal is not about any practical skills, and most definitely not about "employment" and all that. Education got a far more important role.

lsc 11y ago

You realize that this sounds very elitist to people who didn't go to college, right?

sklogic 11y ago
Did I ever say "college education"? I'm talking about all of the existing tiers of education, with the early school being the most important. And the very fact that all the shit like "practical skills" and "employment prospects" are starting to corrode even the primary school is extremely worrying.
- lsc 11y ago
  This is one of those cases where what you are saying, exactly isn't quite what the other person hears. Sort of like how if you speak of a "real american" most people assume you are a racist regardless of your actual intent. Maybe it's not what you are saying, but what I hear (and I think this is likely commonly heard) is "formal education makes you better" in the same way that a British person of 100 years ago might have said that being of good birth makes you better. At that point, it sounds to me mostly like a class division, e.g. your parents had the time and money to educate you in ways that won't provide returns in terms of your own income. I mean, I'm not saying that's what you are saying or even what you meant to say. I'm just pointing out what it sounds like to a group you probably have little contact with. Further, as someone who is a fan of things like history and philosophy, aside from, well, being more entertaining to me, I don't think you can form a coherent argument that a person like me who knows a lot about the history of philosophy is "better" than a person who knows a lot about the history of, say, American Football or ice hockey. I mean, it's a cultural marker, that's for sure; I'm much more likely to want to be around the philosopher than the sports fan, but is the philosophy fan better in any meaningful sense? I'm going to say no.
  - sklogic 11y ago
    > "formal education makes you better" Any kind of education (unless it's a cargo cult education) makes you better, that's the entire point of it. > "better" than a person who knows a lot about the history of, say, American Football or ice hockey. Sports are good for education - and they're not practical and not earnings-oriented. How many of those who had a passion for sport in school went into a professional sport? I am not opposing sport, STEM, music, arts, whatever else - I'm opposing an emphasis on any "practical skills" in general.
    - lsc 11y ago
      I... don't really understand how sports are good for education. I mean, I understand why exercise is good for education, but following sports doesn't involve exercise. >I am not opposing sport, STEM, music, arts, whatever else - I'm opposing an emphasis on any "practical skills" in general. So what standard do you have for "better"? Do you have any standard for "better" or "good"? would memorizing random strings of numbers, then, make a person "better"?
      - sklogic 11y ago
        Any systematic excercise of a willpower is good. Education, even in its most boring and irrelevant forms, is a willpower excercise and therefore is making one a better person - more resilient, more self-reliant, more capable of further educating themselves. That very role of education I was talking about is preserving the accumulated knowledge of our civilisation. As it grows, an amount of general education everybody must withstand grow too. And instead there is a disgusting trend of simplification. I would prefer to see a civilisation of polymaths rather than a civilisation of narrowly trained craftsmen.
        lsc 11y ago
        >I would prefer to see a civilisation of polymaths rather than a civilisation of narrowly trained craftsmen. If you think that doing things gives you a more narrow education than taking classes... I suggest you spend more time with people who do things.