3 ms·

There is a ton of stuff that makes life richer. That doesn't mean we should be teaching it at schools. I can think of movies, games, novels, TV shows, blogs,

There is a ton of stuff that makes life richer. That doesn't mean we should be teaching it at schools. I can think of movies, games, novels, TV shows, blogs, and music that have had orders of magnitude more impact on my life and thinking than Shakespeare. Should we be teaching any of that stuff at school? I'm willing to believe that some people like Shakespeare, but it's a small minority. You can tell by the number of people who read Shakespeare for pleasure - is that number larger or smaller than the number of people who read JK Rowling? Why should we teach the entertainment that a small number of people prefer in schools? I believe the only reason we actually do is tradition. You mention that you can simply have someone learned in plumbing or sundry skill do those tasks for you. I can do one better. I can simply have no one read Shakespeare for me and I can not read it at all and nothing is lost. That is, of course, because unlike plumbing or laying wire there is no reason to need Shakespeare. It's good that you enjoy Shakespeare, but some people enjoy plumbing. Plus, plumbing has a practical purpose, unlike Shakespeare. There is no real reason to teach Shakespeare, other than tradition, and people trying to seem smart or educated. There are many other subjects that make a much stronger case for deserving to be in school curriculum. I read a quote somewhere that goes something like "A society that separates warriors and scholars will have an army led by fools and thinking done by cowards." Similar logic, with different vocabulary, applies, I think, to a society where scholars can't do manual labor.

DocTomoe 5y ago
I like to believe that school works as a catalyst here, showing you stuff you wouldn't normally encounter - you have no trouble accessing popular culture, so there's no need to teach you about that (that's being said, one of my more memorable music lessons was the teacher analysing the composition of Pink Floyd's "Shine on you crazy diamond" with us. I can absolutely see Harry Potter becoming an object of academic study and literature teaching in 50-70 years, it is happening with Tolkien already). On the other hand, less-than-popular culture still is the foundation for our popular culture today - the amount of times "Romeo and Juliet" or "Macbeth" has been adapted, referenced and deconstructed in (popular) media is astonishing, and without knowing the original, you wouldn't fully get the modern references. You don't need to love Shakespeare (I don't exactly, though I like to see the "Scottish play" every few years) to reap these benefits. School is not about what people like. If you go by that measure, there's no real need in math, because you will find a lot less people doing calculus for fun, as compared to people who play fantasy football. Of course, you can't really understand the ideas behind fantasy football if you don't know maths, but who cares, it's not popular... Please note that I did not claim physical labour has no value and one should not know about it. I said that it's relatively easy to pick up, and that it may be more worthwhile to get a professional when the job demands it (a professional, I would like to add, who learned his craft after school, ideally in some kind of apprenticeship). In my country, to get a driver's license, you need to know basic first-aid procedures (and yes, there's a one-day course you need to attend). That doesn't make you a neurosurgeon, and if you have persistent headaches, it's probably better to ask a professional than to depend on me with my first-aid course - or some guy who "learned about surgery techniques" in high school.

DocTomoe 5y ago

I like to believe that school works as a catalyst here, showing you stuff you wouldn't normally encounter - you have no trouble accessing popular culture, so there's no need to teach you about that (that's being said, one of my more memorable music lessons was the teacher analysing the composition of Pink Floyd's "Shine on you crazy diamond" with us. I can absolutely see Harry Potter becoming an object of academic study and literature teaching in 50-70 years, it is happening with Tolkien already). On the other hand, less-than-popular culture still is the foundation for our popular culture today - the amount of times "Romeo and Juliet" or "Macbeth" has been adapted, referenced and deconstructed in (popular) media is astonishing, and without knowing the original, you wouldn't fully get the modern references. You don't need to love Shakespeare (I don't exactly, though I like to see the "Scottish play" every few years) to reap these benefits. School is not about what people like. If you go by that measure, there's no real need in math, because you will find a lot less people doing calculus for fun, as compared to people who play fantasy football. Of course, you can't really understand the ideas behind fantasy football if you don't know maths, but who cares, it's not popular... Please note that I did not claim physical labour has no value and one should not know about it. I said that it's relatively easy to pick up, and that it may be more worthwhile to get a professional when the job demands it (a professional, I would like to add, who learned his craft after school, ideally in some kind of apprenticeship). In my country, to get a driver's license, you need to know basic first-aid procedures (and yes, there's a one-day course you need to attend). That doesn't make you a neurosurgeon, and if you have persistent headaches, it's probably better to ask a professional than to depend on me with my first-aid course - or some guy who "learned about surgery techniques" in high school.