3 ms·

> Let's be honest - public schools' primary functions are to act as a daycare center and subsidized food distribution site. If you child is at all intelligent,

> Let's be honest - public schools' primary functions are to act as a daycare center and subsidized food distribution site. If you child is at all intelligent, you're probably better off leaving them at home with some books than sending them off to PS17851. I know I would have been better off that way! Would you have been though? There's a core curriculum that I really doubt most kids would learn if they had their own way. Even with intelligence there's lots of stuff kids would never learn as it never interests them. What are the odds that a child is interested in Shakespeare, civics, biology, and trigonometry? We're drug through a lot of it kicking and screaming (to an extent), but it has value to have gone through it.

centimeter 7y ago
> There's a core curriculum that I really doubt most kids would learn if they had their own way. Insofar as kids learn (and retain) things at all, chances are they were going to learn it on their own anyway. The preponderance of evidence suggests that it basically doesn't matter what you forcibly try to teach kids between the ages of zero-13; their later academic outcomes aren't going to change much anyway. This matches my anecdotal experience; kids who end up being good in some field are always way ahead of what public schools (which are forced to cater to the lowest common denominator) can teach them anyway, and kids who end up not being good at a field will probably pick up the same information they're being taught naturally, at a more natural and less painful pace. > What are the odds that a child is interested in Shakespeare, civics, biology, and trigonometry High? Lots of kids choose to read books on various topics with their free time and focus, which they would have more of if they weren't swamped with pointless make-work. Plus, it's not like you're actually going to get a comprehensive or even useful understanding of any of those things from the bottom 80% of schools. > but it has value to have gone through it Even if this is true (but I suspect the "kicking and screaming" might actually be net counterproductive), I really doubt it's worth the cost of spending something like 25% of your waking hours in Factory Labor Simulator for the first 13 (or whatever) years of your life.
jotakami 7y ago
The chronic stress of having to complete bullshit assignments on subjects I had no interest in does not justify it. If I could make one law by fiat, it would be illegal to tell a child “You have to learn to do things that you don’t want to do” as justification for the mindless hours of frivolous work. Honestly, judging by the amount of stress it caused me as a child, I’m tempted to call it psychological abuse. Children are human beings too.
umanwizard 7y ago
Most students in public schools do not learn any meaningful amount of Shakespeare or trigonometry, regardless of whether it’s part of the curriculum.

centimeter 7y ago

> There's a core curriculum that I really doubt most kids would learn if they had their own way. Insofar as kids learn (and retain) things at all, chances are they were going to learn it on their own anyway. The preponderance of evidence suggests that it basically doesn't matter what you forcibly try to teach kids between the ages of zero-13; their later academic outcomes aren't going to change much anyway. This matches my anecdotal experience; kids who end up being good in some field are always way ahead of what public schools (which are forced to cater to the lowest common denominator) can teach them anyway, and kids who end up not being good at a field will probably pick up the same information they're being taught naturally, at a more natural and less painful pace. > What are the odds that a child is interested in Shakespeare, civics, biology, and trigonometry High? Lots of kids choose to read books on various topics with their free time and focus, which they would have more of if they weren't swamped with pointless make-work. Plus, it's not like you're actually going to get a comprehensive or even useful understanding of any of those things from the bottom 80% of schools. > but it has value to have gone through it Even if this is true (but I suspect the "kicking and screaming" might actually be net counterproductive), I really doubt it's worth the cost of spending something like 25% of your waking hours in Factory Labor Simulator for the first 13 (or whatever) years of your life.

jotakami 7y ago

The chronic stress of having to complete bullshit assignments on subjects I had no interest in does not justify it. If I could make one law by fiat, it would be illegal to tell a child “You have to learn to do things that you don’t want to do” as justification for the mindless hours of frivolous work. Honestly, judging by the amount of stress it caused me as a child, I’m tempted to call it psychological abuse. Children are human beings too.

umanwizard 7y ago

Most students in public schools do not learn any meaningful amount of Shakespeare or trigonometry, regardless of whether it’s part of the curriculum.