4 ms·

I honestly do not think that the logical conclusion is that Shakespeare's English teacher was the best English teacher of all time. I interpreted the implicati

I honestly do not think that the logical conclusion is that Shakespeare's English teacher was the best English teacher of all time. I interpreted the implication of the talk as being that Shakespeare's formal schooling, or lack of it, was at best irrelevant to his development as a great creative writer. This still supports the thesis of the talk - that the price children pay to participate in formal schooling is not worth it.

bluesign 5y ago
"price children pay to participate in formal schooling is not worth it." It should be more like: "If you are an exceptional child, price you pay to participate in formal schooling is not worth it"
watwut 5y ago
Is there historical reason to think that? That Shakespeare's would be better off without schooling and that his teachers and parents were crappy? Or that if Shakespeare's parents enforced bed time, it was at detriment? In non-writing arts, I know for a fact that there is lineage of famous artists - each learning from predecessors.
- jrumbut 5y ago
  Even if it was true that every bit of schooling hurt Shakespeare, that effect is dwarfed by the contributions to his career made by the various mediocre talents who wrote stuff like Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (where he got so much of his historical material) and the other playwrights in the revenge genre. Same with Einstein, he had his problems with institutions but his breakthroughs relied on the work of their legions of average minds who developed physics and mathematics over the centuries. We should think about how we can best support the handful of geniuses who are held back by the educational system, however I wouldn't be surprised if the kind of education that works for the >99.999th percentile would be terrible for the other 99.999%.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    It seems pretty clear that those in the upper 10% (to pick a random number) of broad intellectual curiosity, motivation, home environment, etc. would likely be much better off with more self-directed learning than a rigid program--with some exceptions like probably languages.

bluesign 5y ago

"price children pay to participate in formal schooling is not worth it." It should be more like: "If you are an exceptional child, price you pay to participate in formal schooling is not worth it"

watwut 5y ago

Is there historical reason to think that? That Shakespeare's would be better off without schooling and that his teachers and parents were crappy? Or that if Shakespeare's parents enforced bed time, it was at detriment? In non-writing arts, I know for a fact that there is lineage of famous artists - each learning from predecessors.

jrumbut 5y ago
Even if it was true that every bit of schooling hurt Shakespeare, that effect is dwarfed by the contributions to his career made by the various mediocre talents who wrote stuff like Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (where he got so much of his historical material) and the other playwrights in the revenge genre. Same with Einstein, he had his problems with institutions but his breakthroughs relied on the work of their legions of average minds who developed physics and mathematics over the centuries. We should think about how we can best support the handful of geniuses who are held back by the educational system, however I wouldn't be surprised if the kind of education that works for the >99.999th percentile would be terrible for the other 99.999%.
- ghaff 5y ago
  It seems pretty clear that those in the upper 10% (to pick a random number) of broad intellectual curiosity, motivation, home environment, etc. would likely be much better off with more self-directed learning than a rigid program--with some exceptions like probably languages.