3 ms·

> I disagree with you here. I think it is a social benefit to expose everyone to a variety of disciplines. How many chemists or engineers or astronauts or autho

by csa 9y ago

> I disagree with you here. I think it is a social benefit to expose everyone to a variety of disciplines. How many chemists or engineers or astronauts or authors found their calling in a classroom? I would wager there are a lot of them. Is it the only way? No, but for a lot of people it is how they find their way in life. Interestingly, I think that we are in agreement here. Your underlying assumption is that the learner is someone who is already motivated to learn and lives in a community that values education. For these folks, sure, expose them to a wide range of ideas. In the US, that covers maybe 30% of the population. What about the other 70%? > Giving everyone access to this kind of exploratory environment can yield huge benefits to society. Again, I think we agree here. Access should be universal. That said, it should also be easily and cheaply accessible outside of the classic timeline (i.e., 5-18 years of age). Note that providing access and actually having the learners learn are two completely different things. Access is fairly good right now, but learning is really low for a big chunk of the population since the available content lacks relevance for their lives. Note that I am not just talking about skill development for jobs, but also the developing universal critical thinking skills that resonate with the learners within their living contexts. The resources used for child-care-masked-as-education could be used for post 8th grade learning for people who find themselves in a (often working) community that values things like more-than-basic knowledge of math, science, history, etc. > I think it is unreasonable to expect that people will come to higher or secondary education on their own. Some will but for a lot of people they may go through life never realizing their potential because nobody challenged them and they never knew what was possible. I guess my question is why do we think most people need secondary or higher (tertiary) education now. If they don't "come to it on their own", will it matter? For the most part, I don't think it will matter. As for the "realizing potential" comment, I still think that you are still thinking in terms of people and communities that are already oriented towards higher ed. The other 70% or so go to school because they have to, and many of them will actively snub efforts to help them "realize their potential" because it will alienate them from their community. Again, I really think that there needs to be cheap/free high quality education available to all throughout a liftetime. That said, I don't think we should force an anachronistic college-oriented curriculum down the throats of those who have no need or negative need for that type of education.

mulmen 9y ago
I'm advocating changing education so it works for "the other 70%". You seem to advocate just giving up on them because they can't be reached. This is our disagreement. Your position seems to be that education should identify strengths and build on them at the exclusion of weaknesses. My position is that education should fill in gaps and make everyone more balanced. These are fundamentally different positions. Also, made up numbers like "70% of people don't care about education" raise red flags for me.
- csa 9y ago
  > I'm advocating changing education so it works for "the other 70%". You seem to advocate just giving up on them because they can't be reached. This is our disagreement. That's a fairly pedantic stance to take. Would you still hold this belief if you talked to the students and parents and they basically said "we don't want this"? I have asked this question to many people, and that is what they said. When asked what they do want, they said they wanted things that will get them (basically) money, power, and/or social currency (with an element of stability/consistency thrown in for each of these). FWIW, I do not advocate giving up on anyone. That said, I don't agree with force-feeding them certain types of education because those are the types of learning that upper middle class people value. The short summary of the research in this area is that it doesn't work particularly well. > Your position seems to be that education should identify strengths and build on them at the exclusion of weaknesses. My position is that education should fill in gaps and make everyone more balanced. These are fundamentally different positions. Maybe at an abstract level, but I don't really see that in what I have said so far. My actual beliefs are quite the opposite -- fill the gaps. The issue is what is considered a "gap". What many educated folks call "gaps", less educated folks call "features" (e.g., creationism). > Also, made up numbers like "70% of people don't care about education" raise red flags for me. Meh, it's a little hand-wavy, but it's not far off from a literal perspective or from an eyeballing it perspective. About 32% of any given cohort of high school aged people will graduate from college before they are 24. That's the source of my number. There are definitely arguments to be made around the periphery, but that's the target audience I refer to. I think the total college attending % is 50-something (stats say 66% of high school grads, but they leave out the 18% high school dropouts in their counts, so it's off by a bit), so feel free to use that if you like. I personally consider most of those folks who did not finish to be not a good fit for college from the get go (and that's totally ok for them not to be a good fit). My overall point is that the modern high school curriculum was designed at a time when most of the folks who went to high school went to college or worked with people who did. For example, in 1900, only ~6% of the population graduated from high school, ~2% finished college, and a few more got "letters of instruction" after two years of higher ed. Basically, high school education was for the elite. Yet that curriculum oriented towards the elite is still used in practice today. Why? I really encourage you to go to a school (probably inner city or rural) that has a very low college-attendance rate. Talk to the students. Talk to the teachers. Talk to the parents. Their perspectives are fairly valid -- they just want a good life for the students. The tricky question is what constitutes "good life" and what is the best way to get there. I personally don't think that our current system answers either question particularly well.

by csa 9y ago

mulmen 9y ago

I'm advocating changing education so it works for "the other 70%". You seem to advocate just giving up on them because they can't be reached. This is our disagreement. Your position seems to be that education should identify strengths and build on them at the exclusion of weaknesses. My position is that education should fill in gaps and make everyone more balanced. These are fundamentally different positions. Also, made up numbers like "70% of people don't care about education" raise red flags for me.

csa 9y ago
> I'm advocating changing education so it works for "the other 70%". You seem to advocate just giving up on them because they can't be reached. This is our disagreement. That's a fairly pedantic stance to take. Would you still hold this belief if you talked to the students and parents and they basically said "we don't want this"? I have asked this question to many people, and that is what they said. When asked what they do want, they said they wanted things that will get them (basically) money, power, and/or social currency (with an element of stability/consistency thrown in for each of these). FWIW, I do not advocate giving up on anyone. That said, I don't agree with force-feeding them certain types of education because those are the types of learning that upper middle class people value. The short summary of the research in this area is that it doesn't work particularly well. > Your position seems to be that education should identify strengths and build on them at the exclusion of weaknesses. My position is that education should fill in gaps and make everyone more balanced. These are fundamentally different positions. Maybe at an abstract level, but I don't really see that in what I have said so far. My actual beliefs are quite the opposite -- fill the gaps. The issue is what is considered a "gap". What many educated folks call "gaps", less educated folks call "features" (e.g., creationism). > Also, made up numbers like "70% of people don't care about education" raise red flags for me. Meh, it's a little hand-wavy, but it's not far off from a literal perspective or from an eyeballing it perspective. About 32% of any given cohort of high school aged people will graduate from college before they are 24. That's the source of my number. There are definitely arguments to be made around the periphery, but that's the target audience I refer to. I think the total college attending % is 50-something (stats say 66% of high school grads, but they leave out the 18% high school dropouts in their counts, so it's off by a bit), so feel free to use that if you like. I personally consider most of those folks who did not finish to be not a good fit for college from the get go (and that's totally ok for them not to be a good fit). My overall point is that the modern high school curriculum was designed at a time when most of the folks who went to high school went to college or worked with people who did. For example, in 1900, only ~6% of the population graduated from high school, ~2% finished college, and a few more got "letters of instruction" after two years of higher ed. Basically, high school education was for the elite. Yet that curriculum oriented towards the elite is still used in practice today. Why? I really encourage you to go to a school (probably inner city or rural) that has a very low college-attendance rate. Talk to the students. Talk to the teachers. Talk to the parents. Their perspectives are fairly valid -- they just want a good life for the students. The tricky question is what constitutes "good life" and what is the best way to get there. I personally don't think that our current system answers either question particularly well.