4 ms·

It is because schools have a different goal than we expect. We expect them to teach, and especially help people understand problems. They do not exists to teac

It is because schools have a different goal than we expect. We expect them to teach, and especially help people understand problems. They do not exists to teach. They exist to cram bare minimum of skills and knowledge so one can work. It is even worse in post-communist countries where schools actively hammer you down to the common level.

candiodari 7y ago
They exist to be the cheapest possible day care centers you mean. Both from the perspective of parents and, even more, from the perspective of the state/taxpayer. > A good teacher will not only illustrate the process with a degree of clarity and detail that invites good questions, but also stand up to the resulting interrogation. Outside of private schools, you won't be finding many teachers that can do this at all. This is only possible if IT teacher pay is competitive with FANG. If Chemistry teacher pay is competitive with Chevron. If ... and that's just not the case. So the big problem with "play and experience teaching with 1:1 attention and lots of practical experiments" is that nobody is willing to pay for it. So we can't do that. That brings the question: what, reasonably priced alternatives exist ? And let's assume that "youtube" is not (yet?) a good answer. What can we do with underqualified, and average intelligence at best teachers ... That then makes the answer of "rote learning" perhaps not such a bad answer. It has the big advantage that matters: it is not required for a teacher to actually understand what they're teaching. And since this is a requirement ...