3 ms·

You are making it sound like the main thing we learn at school are hard facts and memorizing. As you yourself point out, that's hardly the case and most of us c

You are making it sound like the main thing we learn at school are hard facts and memorizing. As you yourself point out, that's hardly the case and most of us can attest how little we recall from those classes we didn't care about (and later in life discovered how amazing and highly logical topics they actually were). The key is social interaction. The most important thing you can teach your small kid (2-4 of age) according to psychologists is to be well socially integrated. Its a major booster for rest of the life, and also in cumulative form. And it transfers also to later age. This was completely taken from all kids affected by school closures. We all know by heart how fucked up, toxic and disconnected from real world the online socializing is. Well, this is the only thing kids had for more than a year. Ideal schools teach much much more, but I don't think many of us went to those, I for sure didn't. So the social part remains the most important thing schools gave us, and our kids don't have even that. I don't claim I know whats best, that's anyway highly subjective based on one's interest. But I am damn sure for the kids this was the net loss that will reverb for rest of their lives in negative manner. What would be actually really great if psychologists for a change came up with something useful for general population - some sort of easy-to-implement-globally course/program how to compensate this harm once kids come back to school.

robomartin 5y ago
> most of us can attest how little we recall from those classes we didn't care about (and later in life discovered how amazing and highly logical topics they actually were). Exactly. There's a term for this: Opportunity cost. I would suggest we need to devote all of high school to creating a solid path into both college and non-college professional/trade jobs. As an example, five years of high school history is simply ridiculous. It is utterly worthless for anyone other than those who might go on to college to get a history degree. And, BTW, I love history. I am simply looking at the opportunity cost. Sir Ken Robinson's old TED presentation is relevant here [0]. A better system would be one where the path optimizes based on a range of criteria rather than treating every single kid as the same block of clay. This is much harder than the cookie-cutter approach we take over 12+ years. "All kids have tremendous talents and we squander them". "If you were to visit education as an alien and asked what it's for? <snip> You would have to conclude <snip> The whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors" > The key is social interaction. Absolutely agreed. My comment does not address this at all. There is a legitimate claim that 2020 had social effects we don't yet understand. I can't speak to this other than to say that I watched my kids manage this quite successfully. I have not seen any ill effects. > But I am damn sure for the kids this was the net loss that will reverb for rest of their lives in negative manner. I think you are wrong. The proof is simple: Look at what kids went through during the world wars. I assure you this was worse than 2020. In my own family history, kids survived genocide. They went on to become perfectly capable, balanced and successful adults. It did not wreck their lives. I think this narrative is false and defeatist. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_do_schools_kill_creativity?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_do_schools_kill_c...

robomartin 5y ago

> most of us can attest how little we recall from those classes we didn't care about (and later in life discovered how amazing and highly logical topics they actually were). Exactly. There's a term for this: Opportunity cost. I would suggest we need to devote all of high school to creating a solid path into both college and non-college professional/trade jobs. As an example, five years of high school history is simply ridiculous. It is utterly worthless for anyone other than those who might go on to college to get a history degree. And, BTW, I love history. I am simply looking at the opportunity cost. Sir Ken Robinson's old TED presentation is relevant here [0]. A better system would be one where the path optimizes based on a range of criteria rather than treating every single kid as the same block of clay. This is much harder than the cookie-cutter approach we take over 12+ years. "All kids have tremendous talents and we squander them". "If you were to visit education as an alien and asked what it's for? <snip> You would have to conclude <snip> The whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors" > The key is social interaction. Absolutely agreed. My comment does not address this at all. There is a legitimate claim that 2020 had social effects we don't yet understand. I can't speak to this other than to say that I watched my kids manage this quite successfully. I have not seen any ill effects. > But I am damn sure for the kids this was the net loss that will reverb for rest of their lives in negative manner. I think you are wrong. The proof is simple: Look at what kids went through during the world wars. I assure you this was worse than 2020. In my own family history, kids survived genocide. They went on to become perfectly capable, balanced and successful adults. It did not wreck their lives. I think this narrative is false and defeatist. [0] https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_do_schools_kill_creativity?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_do_schools_kill_c...