5 ms·

A Theoretical "Case Against Education"

30 points by isaacfrond 2y ago

isaacfrond 2y ago
tl;dr The facts you learn at school are surprisingly ill remembered. But stuff learned by cultural osmosis is remembered very well. So why go to school?
- soco 2y ago
  Lacking a better alternative? Homeschooling works too but gets you only so far.
  - gregjor 2y ago
    What do you mean by "only gets you so far?" Opinion, experience, or do you have some evidence? Homeschooled kids can get high school diplomas in most states (all three of my kids did), and get into college (two of my kids decided to go to university, and had no problems get admitted). In the group of ~30 secular homeschooling families I belonged to when I had school-age kids, many of the kids went on to college, got jobs, and turned out just as functional (if not more successful) than kids who went to public schools.
    - bilsbie 2y ago
      My main concerns are where would they make friendships.
      - geomark 2y ago
        That's a weak reason. Instead of being locked up with a bunch of classmates which you have no choice about you get to associate with people you choose.
        gregjor 2y ago
        Yes, exactly. And children should have opportunities to socialize with adults, in ways that aren't based on authority and following arbitrary rules. All of us who went to school know the feeling of disorientation when school ended and we had to face "the real world," which has very different rules and expectations than the school environment. Imagine raising children who didn't have to make that adjustment, because they only know "the real world."
        soco 2y ago
        Not kidding but my real world is based on authority and arbitrary rules - see laws, police, bosses, army, traffic...
        ink_13 2y ago
        > a bunch of classmates which you have no choice about you get to associate with This is actually extremely valuable as a life experience, and not gaining it as a child represents a major loss
        geomark 2y ago
        I hear that said but I completely disagree. Being surrounded by mostly game-addicted goal-less classmates is a drag on even a motivated high achiever. It was such a difference to have the flexibility of homeschooling and be able to get him in with some like-minded kids and watch him bloom (my anecdote, n=1).
        sanderjd 2y ago
        Both experiences seem useful to me. The first is useful as a lesson that lots of people are like this (which is just true) and maybe it's not what you want for yourself, and the second is useful for the obvious reasons. Finding time to get both of those lessons is hard though, I get it.
        aleph_minus_one 2y ago
        > This is actually extremely valuable as a life experience, and not gaining it as a child represents a major loss Indeed: if you don't get this life experience, you don't learn to cultivate a fervent hate towards other humans. :-( Whether this is a desirable trait for you children to get is up to you to decide ...
      - gregjor 2y ago
        Same way everyone makes friends. Homeschooling doesn't mean locking your kids in the house, unless that's the reason you homeschool (and some parents do, usually for religious reasons). Our kids went to sports activities, all kinds of classes, music lessons, activities, group trips to the park, etc. Depending on where you live you will find groups of other homeschooling parents. In some states homeschooled kids can participate in at least some school activities, such as sports. For older children community colleges and universities may have programs. There's plenty to do, and many ways for kids to make friends. If you live in a rural or remote place that will be harder, of course, but that would affect your kids regardless. We moved to a place (suburban Portland) where we would have neighbors with kids, in a state that has liberal laws regarding homeschooling. People move for jobs and careers all the time, why not move to raise kids in a better environment?
      - mrob 2y ago
        Alternatively, how do publicly schooled children make friendships after their schooling teaches them that the default social interaction is hostility? A large proportion of socialization found in schools would be illegal if you tried it in the workplace.
        sanderjd 2y ago
        I think this is pretty close to being equivalent to asking "how do people turn into adults when they were once children and adolescents?". They grow up. Hormones change, brains develop, lessons are learned, wisdom is gained. The primary reason workplaces tend to be better than high schools is that they are not full of teenagers.
    - soco 2y ago
      Sample size only 2, because not being interested in homeschooling I don't have those support groups. Getting admitted to university after homeschooling is easy, staying there is tough. One kid struggled, flew out then needed one extra year of preparation, the other kid went directly to two years of preparation to be able to successfully go through university. But it's true you don't need those higher studies to get jobs, and for that homeschooling works just as fine. If you ask why I wasn't interested in homeschooling: not interested in becoming a teacher either as full or part time job (because no, teaching latin grammar to your kids is not parent quality time), and same argument for the wife.
      - gregjor 2y ago
        About one-third of students who start university drop out. Difficulty staying there isn't a homeschooling problem. And every university grapples with students unprepared for college, almost all of whom graduated from public schools. No one needs to learn Latin grammar to get into university today, or to succeed in a professional career -- strange example to pick. The bar is actually quite low, have a look at the state exams for granting a high school diploma. We unschooled our kids (no curriculum) and just taught the basics -- reading, writing, arithmetic -- then let them choose what interested them and made those things available. They all passed the state diploma requirements exam on the first try, and scored in the higher percentiles. Homeschooling doesn't mean re-creating the classroom environment and following the school curriculum at home. And it doesn't doom your kids to low-end careers.
    - orwin 2y ago
      I was a youth camp counselor, then a 'physics counselor' for a small non-profit that teaches a lot of stem via experiments and who got called at youth camps, schools and by other non-profit. Let me guess how you were successful: You had at least one adult not working but present (I saw that with parents, but also an uncle and a greatfather once). - You probably lived near activities, in an urban or suburbian area, with OK to great public transportation (forgot you could drive as early as 16 in the US, maybe I'm wrong about the public transportation, but it help). - you probably had a support network (non profit with other parents who homeschool their kids). All this is practically mandatory for successful homeschooling. Then stuff that help: access to the official curriculum, independant home, curious parents (all this non mandatory) Also, when comparing success with homeschooling VS public school, you have to compare socioeconomic class and home stability. In country like France or the US with terrible public school system, I guess homeschooling 'the right way' should be a bit more successfull, I doubt this is the case in northern Europe or in countries with good to great public schools.
      - gregjor 2y ago
        I mentioned our situation (back when we had young children) in other comments. I could work from home at least some of the time, my wife quit working while we had young children (because I make more money). We moved to suburban Portland to have other families and activities nearby, and because Oregon has relatively liberal laws regarding homeschooling. And we had family and friends there already. We found groups of homeschoolers -- easy to do, they're all online now. We did not follow the official curriculum, just made ourselves aware of the requirements for obtaining a high school diploma should our kids want to do that (they did, all got it easily). We more or less "unschooled," which means no rigid curriculum, no trying to re-create the classroom at home, and letting kids choose how to spend their time, within limits (we didn't allow much TV and video games and social media weren't much of a thing back then). Our technique, if you can call it that, was based a lot on Montessori, which I recommend to parents who can afford that but can't manage homeschooling, or don't feel like they can competently do it. I know not everyone can homeschool their kids, for practical or personal reasons. I don't suggest everyone do it, or that kids who go to school are necessarily getting damaged or harmed (though that does happen). Ask any teacher, the number one predictor of academic success is parental involvement. Whether that takes the form of homeschooling, or just paying attention and spending time with your kids, that time makes a huge difference in the long term. I don't mean going to school board meetings and screaming about snack machines or sex education classes, I mean spending actual time with your kids so they feel valued and part of the family rather than an inconvenience.
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago
  Presumes the purpose of going to school is to be crammed full of facts. But you also learn to write, express yourself, solve problems, use facts that you currently know to some purpose, encounter ideas and subjects you would not have otherwise, socialise, etc. I do agree that the emphasis people place on facts is misguided. It just happens to be easier to test facts, so a lot of schooling is oriented around them. My son just complained that he did a maths problem, got the correct answer using a simpler method than the one the teacher was looking for, and got zero points, because he didn't use the approved method. In my world, he exhibited great thinking. In school world he didn't do what makes it easy for them to give him a mark.
  - isaacfrond 2y ago
    In my own time as a high school student, I would come up with alternative solutions all the time. I'd always get full marks, though sometimes I'd have to explain it to the teacher afterwards. Recently, I did the same test as my daughter did, who is now in high school. It was a bet kind of thing. So anyway, after doing the exam, I figured I'd have 9 out of 10 marks. I though t I'd lose some marks for some clumsy arithmetic, but it went pretty well (I thought). So my daughter then grades my test and carefully explains that maybe I might just have a passing grade (6 out of 10). Ok. whatever. That can't be right. So she takes my test to the teacher to have her grade it as well. The teacher's verdict: clearly, easily, a failing grade. Maybe 4 out of 10 marks. Turns out getting the right answer in a clever way counts for nothing. What you are being tested on is: can you reproduce the algorithm we are teaching you in school. As I solved most of the problems in a different manner, I consequently got almost none of the marks. I suppose, that if you know and accept this, then you can accept the result as well. It's disappointing I guess, but certainly it makes math more accessible. I suppose there are pros and cons. Your son wasn't tested on cleverly getting the right answer. The test was: can you reproduce this algorithm. He couldn't.
    - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
      Well, the test did not specify that a particular method should be used. It just asked for the student to calculate the answer and show the working (which he did). He knows the "correct" way of doing it too, and could have done it if instructed to. He has other ridiculous examples, e.g. a question that asked what reason might explain why people were smoking less. He gave a perfectly good answer (better awareness of the risks), it just wasn't the "approved" fact they were looking for. It was somewhat like this when I was at school, but it's much worse now. No thought, even correct answers with working not accepted. Sometimes you just have to guess what the approved fact you are supposed to regurgitate is.
quantum_state 2y ago
Education is more about learning to think & ask questions properly, using existing facts as tools …
- mrob 2y ago
  But in practice, the thing that's actually rewarded is cramming for exams. Students respond to incentives.
boxed 2y ago
I think the socializing part is the big part of schools value. But even as I believe that, I have been rather appalled at how my sons school lets him (and presumably everyone) write by imitation only: starting letters from the bottom, making the shapes all wrong, etc. I have had to take control over that myself to make sure he's got the fundamentals right in shaping, line order, and kerning. Letting students repeat incorrect behavior from the start is the opposite of what school should do, it cements bad habits.
- gregjor 2y ago
  "Socialization" is a canard once you look at the "society" of schools, more like prisons than a place you would want your children to spend their days. Children do need to socialize with family, friends, and the society they participate in, but they can do that without school. Children did that for millennia before we invented schools. There's no reason to lock children up for most of the day in an artificial and oppressive environment, day care so parents can work, and indoctrination masquerading as "education."
  - jddj 2y ago
    > Children did that for millennia before we invented schools. What's the name for this particular rhetorical method? I see it often.
    - bitlax 2y ago
      argument
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      you may feel that it is related to various fallacies - for example the fallacy of misplaced concreteness or the fallacy of false analogy?
    - orwin 2y ago
      Call to tradition/call to nature
gregjor 2y ago
The article misses the point of learning, confusing it with "education." I wonder how many members of the rationalist community have children. I haven't read the book reviewed in the article, I no longer have school-age children. For anyone interested in the difference between learning and school/education, and some alternatives such as homeschooling: Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich How Children Learn and How Children Fail by John Holt The Six Lesson Schoolteacher by John Taylor Gatto: https://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html https://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html
- kloop 2y ago
  > The article misses the point of learning, confusing it with "education." They really don't. The book in question is specifically titled "A case against education", and it's not an anti-learning book. It's a case against the education system specifically, because he argues that the system isn't really about learning (and the things it is about cause large negative externalities).
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    I'll have to read the book, my questions about this weren't answered in the OP, but possibly are in the book. But something I think both sides of this debate seem to miss, or not want to talk about, is that the childcare aspect of the education system is useful on its own terms. My pro public education friends who work in that system don't love this point, because they are highly trained educators damnit, not babysitters! And I'm very sympathetic to that. And the formal education skeptics also don't love this, because caring for their own children should be the responsibility of parents and families. I have some sympathy for this too. But I think every "normie" parent I know who doesn't really have any particular dog in this fight would say that an important part of kids going to school is that they have a safe and stable place to go for a good sized chunk of most days while the parents get adult things done, either at work or for the household. The schooling / education side is very important too of course, but it's not the only important thing schools are doing. Now, I do personally tend to think that a better setup would be like a big family or community commune with a relatively small number of adults watching a relatively large number of children throughout the day, and a few hours of dedicated schooling peppered in. But the path dependency to get to a setup like that from the way our society is currently set up is mind boggling to me. Neither side of this debate has the goods here, in my view. Homeschooling is a totally different thing than that. Yes, there is usually some community component, but it's limited and fundamentally still requires an extremely large time investment by a large number of parents per child. I think this probably is truly better for the right parents; if one parent really wants to be with the kids all day and is excited and able to teach them, and another parent is capable of making enough income to make it work, and there is enough of a family or community nearby to incorporate with socially, then yeah, I do think that can be excellent. But that's a lot of ifs! Many (I'd say most, but I don't have data, so I'll keep it vague) parents have their own ambitions and want to work in the adult world, or even if not, they find it draining to be solely focused on their children all the time, and need time to be adults. And I think it is very lonely during the day, both for kids and parents, as everyone else in the neighborhood is working or at school. A larger community sharing this work across more children per adult in a community speaks to all these issues, but such a setup just isn't readily available to most people, and it's unclear to me how to make it be. (I always wonder if this is something that draws people to cults. They often seem to have a setup closer to this. If it weren't for all the brainwashing, maybe they'd be onto something.)
delichon 2y ago
> 58% know which gas causes most global warming (carbon dioxide) Actually, it's water vapor. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas overall, being responsible for 41–67% of the greenhouse effect, but its global concentrations are not directly affected by human activity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#:~:text=The%20absorption%20patterns%20of%20water,directly%20affected%20by%20human%20activity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#:~:text=The%2.... Ironic to use a question to judge education quality and then judge by the wrong answer.
- mrob 2y ago
  This claim relies on an pedantic definition of "causes". The biggest direct cause of global warming is water vapor. However, the main thing affecting water vapor concentration is other greenhouse gases. Therefore the root cause is other greenhouse gases, the most important of which is CO2. Water vapor simply acts as a multiplier to the effect of these other gases.
- omnicognate 2y ago
  Global warming is the ongoing increase in temperature, which is primarily driven by increasing carbon dioxide levels. It's not the same thing as the greenhouse effect, which is the mechanism by which CO2 and other greenhouse gases affect global temperature. Water vapour is a stronger greenhouse gas but it is not the primary cause of global warming.
  - delichon 2y ago
    Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas directly causing the warming of the globe. If the question is, what is the primary cause of the modern differential in the warming of the globe, there's a different answer. But if answering the literal question rather than an implied question is wrong, it's a lousy question.
    - omnicognate 2y ago
poulpy123 2y ago
TL;DR: people remember more factoids when they are recent and/or repeated regularly than when they are old and/or not repeated. Somewhat it's an argument against education (don't ask me why)
difosfor 2y ago
I think you basically remember what you think is important. And school can be a great place to teach you about important things you will probably not pick up at home. If only a fraction of that is permanently added to students lives, it's still a valuable exercise. Of course education is not a constant thing, it keeps changing through time and it sounds like it could be improved. Anyhow I'm personally very happy with the things I've learned in school and the friends I've made there. Sorry to hear about people apparently finding it completely useless.
jacknews 2y ago
OMG these are just a bunch of random facts, and 'learning facts' seems to be the focus of the article. Who cares? Education is not about facts but about building capability. Kids should be taught fundamental facts of course (atoms, place numbers, etc), but really, ways of thinking, systems, techniques, ways to approach problems and find answers, etc.

30 points by isaacfrond 2y ago

tl;dr The facts you learn at school are surprisingly ill remembered. But stuff learned by cultural osmosis is remembered very well. So why go to school?

soco 2y ago
Lacking a better alternative? Homeschooling works too but gets you only so far.
- gregjor 2y ago
  What do you mean by "only gets you so far?" Opinion, experience, or do you have some evidence? Homeschooled kids can get high school diplomas in most states (all three of my kids did), and get into college (two of my kids decided to go to university, and had no problems get admitted). In the group of ~30 secular homeschooling families I belonged to when I had school-age kids, many of the kids went on to college, got jobs, and turned out just as functional (if not more successful) than kids who went to public schools.
  - bilsbie 2y ago
    My main concerns are where would they make friendships.
    - geomark 2y ago
      That's a weak reason. Instead of being locked up with a bunch of classmates which you have no choice about you get to associate with people you choose.
      - gregjor 2y ago
        Yes, exactly. And children should have opportunities to socialize with adults, in ways that aren't based on authority and following arbitrary rules. All of us who went to school know the feeling of disorientation when school ended and we had to face "the real world," which has very different rules and expectations than the school environment. Imagine raising children who didn't have to make that adjustment, because they only know "the real world."
        soco 2y ago
        Not kidding but my real world is based on authority and arbitrary rules - see laws, police, bosses, army, traffic...
      - ink_13 2y ago
        > a bunch of classmates which you have no choice about you get to associate with This is actually extremely valuable as a life experience, and not gaining it as a child represents a major loss
        geomark 2y ago
        I hear that said but I completely disagree. Being surrounded by mostly game-addicted goal-less classmates is a drag on even a motivated high achiever. It was such a difference to have the flexibility of homeschooling and be able to get him in with some like-minded kids and watch him bloom (my anecdote, n=1).
        sanderjd 2y ago
        Both experiences seem useful to me. The first is useful as a lesson that lots of people are like this (which is just true) and maybe it's not what you want for yourself, and the second is useful for the obvious reasons. Finding time to get both of those lessons is hard though, I get it.
        aleph_minus_one 2y ago
        > This is actually extremely valuable as a life experience, and not gaining it as a child represents a major loss Indeed: if you don't get this life experience, you don't learn to cultivate a fervent hate towards other humans. :-( Whether this is a desirable trait for you children to get is up to you to decide ...
    - gregjor 2y ago
      Same way everyone makes friends. Homeschooling doesn't mean locking your kids in the house, unless that's the reason you homeschool (and some parents do, usually for religious reasons). Our kids went to sports activities, all kinds of classes, music lessons, activities, group trips to the park, etc. Depending on where you live you will find groups of other homeschooling parents. In some states homeschooled kids can participate in at least some school activities, such as sports. For older children community colleges and universities may have programs. There's plenty to do, and many ways for kids to make friends. If you live in a rural or remote place that will be harder, of course, but that would affect your kids regardless. We moved to a place (suburban Portland) where we would have neighbors with kids, in a state that has liberal laws regarding homeschooling. People move for jobs and careers all the time, why not move to raise kids in a better environment?
    - mrob 2y ago
      Alternatively, how do publicly schooled children make friendships after their schooling teaches them that the default social interaction is hostility? A large proportion of socialization found in schools would be illegal if you tried it in the workplace.
      - sanderjd 2y ago
        I think this is pretty close to being equivalent to asking "how do people turn into adults when they were once children and adolescents?". They grow up. Hormones change, brains develop, lessons are learned, wisdom is gained. The primary reason workplaces tend to be better than high schools is that they are not full of teenagers.
  - soco 2y ago
    Sample size only 2, because not being interested in homeschooling I don't have those support groups. Getting admitted to university after homeschooling is easy, staying there is tough. One kid struggled, flew out then needed one extra year of preparation, the other kid went directly to two years of preparation to be able to successfully go through university. But it's true you don't need those higher studies to get jobs, and for that homeschooling works just as fine. If you ask why I wasn't interested in homeschooling: not interested in becoming a teacher either as full or part time job (because no, teaching latin grammar to your kids is not parent quality time), and same argument for the wife.
    - gregjor 2y ago
      About one-third of students who start university drop out. Difficulty staying there isn't a homeschooling problem. And every university grapples with students unprepared for college, almost all of whom graduated from public schools. No one needs to learn Latin grammar to get into university today, or to succeed in a professional career -- strange example to pick. The bar is actually quite low, have a look at the state exams for granting a high school diploma. We unschooled our kids (no curriculum) and just taught the basics -- reading, writing, arithmetic -- then let them choose what interested them and made those things available. They all passed the state diploma requirements exam on the first try, and scored in the higher percentiles. Homeschooling doesn't mean re-creating the classroom environment and following the school curriculum at home. And it doesn't doom your kids to low-end careers.
  - orwin 2y ago
    I was a youth camp counselor, then a 'physics counselor' for a small non-profit that teaches a lot of stem via experiments and who got called at youth camps, schools and by other non-profit. Let me guess how you were successful: You had at least one adult not working but present (I saw that with parents, but also an uncle and a greatfather once). - You probably lived near activities, in an urban or suburbian area, with OK to great public transportation (forgot you could drive as early as 16 in the US, maybe I'm wrong about the public transportation, but it help). - you probably had a support network (non profit with other parents who homeschool their kids). All this is practically mandatory for successful homeschooling. Then stuff that help: access to the official curriculum, independant home, curious parents (all this non mandatory) Also, when comparing success with homeschooling VS public school, you have to compare socioeconomic class and home stability. In country like France or the US with terrible public school system, I guess homeschooling 'the right way' should be a bit more successfull, I doubt this is the case in northern Europe or in countries with good to great public schools.
    - gregjor 2y ago
      I mentioned our situation (back when we had young children) in other comments. I could work from home at least some of the time, my wife quit working while we had young children (because I make more money). We moved to suburban Portland to have other families and activities nearby, and because Oregon has relatively liberal laws regarding homeschooling. And we had family and friends there already. We found groups of homeschoolers -- easy to do, they're all online now. We did not follow the official curriculum, just made ourselves aware of the requirements for obtaining a high school diploma should our kids want to do that (they did, all got it easily). We more or less "unschooled," which means no rigid curriculum, no trying to re-create the classroom at home, and letting kids choose how to spend their time, within limits (we didn't allow much TV and video games and social media weren't much of a thing back then). Our technique, if you can call it that, was based a lot on Montessori, which I recommend to parents who can afford that but can't manage homeschooling, or don't feel like they can competently do it. I know not everyone can homeschool their kids, for practical or personal reasons. I don't suggest everyone do it, or that kids who go to school are necessarily getting damaged or harmed (though that does happen). Ask any teacher, the number one predictor of academic success is parental involvement. Whether that takes the form of homeschooling, or just paying attention and spending time with your kids, that time makes a huge difference in the long term. I don't mean going to school board meetings and screaming about snack machines or sex education classes, I mean spending actual time with your kids so they feel valued and part of the family rather than an inconvenience.
MattPalmer1086 2y ago
Presumes the purpose of going to school is to be crammed full of facts. But you also learn to write, express yourself, solve problems, use facts that you currently know to some purpose, encounter ideas and subjects you would not have otherwise, socialise, etc. I do agree that the emphasis people place on facts is misguided. It just happens to be easier to test facts, so a lot of schooling is oriented around them. My son just complained that he did a maths problem, got the correct answer using a simpler method than the one the teacher was looking for, and got zero points, because he didn't use the approved method. In my world, he exhibited great thinking. In school world he didn't do what makes it easy for them to give him a mark.
- isaacfrond 2y ago
  In my own time as a high school student, I would come up with alternative solutions all the time. I'd always get full marks, though sometimes I'd have to explain it to the teacher afterwards. Recently, I did the same test as my daughter did, who is now in high school. It was a bet kind of thing. So anyway, after doing the exam, I figured I'd have 9 out of 10 marks. I though t I'd lose some marks for some clumsy arithmetic, but it went pretty well (I thought). So my daughter then grades my test and carefully explains that maybe I might just have a passing grade (6 out of 10). Ok. whatever. That can't be right. So she takes my test to the teacher to have her grade it as well. The teacher's verdict: clearly, easily, a failing grade. Maybe 4 out of 10 marks. Turns out getting the right answer in a clever way counts for nothing. What you are being tested on is: can you reproduce the algorithm we are teaching you in school. As I solved most of the problems in a different manner, I consequently got almost none of the marks. I suppose, that if you know and accept this, then you can accept the result as well. It's disappointing I guess, but certainly it makes math more accessible. I suppose there are pros and cons. Your son wasn't tested on cleverly getting the right answer. The test was: can you reproduce this algorithm. He couldn't.
  - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
    Well, the test did not specify that a particular method should be used. It just asked for the student to calculate the answer and show the working (which he did). He knows the "correct" way of doing it too, and could have done it if instructed to. He has other ridiculous examples, e.g. a question that asked what reason might explain why people were smoking less. He gave a perfectly good answer (better awareness of the risks), it just wasn't the "approved" fact they were looking for. It was somewhat like this when I was at school, but it's much worse now. No thought, even correct answers with working not accepted. Sometimes you just have to guess what the approved fact you are supposed to regurgitate is.

quantum_state 2y ago

Education is more about learning to think & ask questions properly, using existing facts as tools …

mrob 2y ago
But in practice, the thing that's actually rewarded is cramming for exams. Students respond to incentives.

boxed 2y ago

I think the socializing part is the big part of schools value. But even as I believe that, I have been rather appalled at how my sons school lets him (and presumably everyone) write by imitation only: starting letters from the bottom, making the shapes all wrong, etc. I have had to take control over that myself to make sure he's got the fundamentals right in shaping, line order, and kerning. Letting students repeat incorrect behavior from the start is the opposite of what school should do, it cements bad habits.

gregjor 2y ago
"Socialization" is a canard once you look at the "society" of schools, more like prisons than a place you would want your children to spend their days. Children do need to socialize with family, friends, and the society they participate in, but they can do that without school. Children did that for millennia before we invented schools. There's no reason to lock children up for most of the day in an artificial and oppressive environment, day care so parents can work, and indoctrination masquerading as "education."
- jddj 2y ago
  > Children did that for millennia before we invented schools. What's the name for this particular rhetorical method? I see it often.
  - bitlax 2y ago
    argument
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    you may feel that it is related to various fallacies - for example the fallacy of misplaced concreteness or the fallacy of false analogy?
  - orwin 2y ago
    Call to tradition/call to nature

gregjor 2y ago

The article misses the point of learning, confusing it with "education." I wonder how many members of the rationalist community have children. I haven't read the book reviewed in the article, I no longer have school-age children. For anyone interested in the difference between learning and school/education, and some alternatives such as homeschooling: Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich How Children Learn and How Children Fail by John Holt The Six Lesson Schoolteacher by John Taylor Gatto: https://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html https://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html

kloop 2y ago
> The article misses the point of learning, confusing it with "education." They really don't. The book in question is specifically titled "A case against education", and it's not an anti-learning book. It's a case against the education system specifically, because he argues that the system isn't really about learning (and the things it is about cause large negative externalities).
- sanderjd 2y ago
  I'll have to read the book, my questions about this weren't answered in the OP, but possibly are in the book. But something I think both sides of this debate seem to miss, or not want to talk about, is that the childcare aspect of the education system is useful on its own terms. My pro public education friends who work in that system don't love this point, because they are highly trained educators damnit, not babysitters! And I'm very sympathetic to that. And the formal education skeptics also don't love this, because caring for their own children should be the responsibility of parents and families. I have some sympathy for this too. But I think every "normie" parent I know who doesn't really have any particular dog in this fight would say that an important part of kids going to school is that they have a safe and stable place to go for a good sized chunk of most days while the parents get adult things done, either at work or for the household. The schooling / education side is very important too of course, but it's not the only important thing schools are doing. Now, I do personally tend to think that a better setup would be like a big family or community commune with a relatively small number of adults watching a relatively large number of children throughout the day, and a few hours of dedicated schooling peppered in. But the path dependency to get to a setup like that from the way our society is currently set up is mind boggling to me. Neither side of this debate has the goods here, in my view. Homeschooling is a totally different thing than that. Yes, there is usually some community component, but it's limited and fundamentally still requires an extremely large time investment by a large number of parents per child. I think this probably is truly better for the right parents; if one parent really wants to be with the kids all day and is excited and able to teach them, and another parent is capable of making enough income to make it work, and there is enough of a family or community nearby to incorporate with socially, then yeah, I do think that can be excellent. But that's a lot of ifs! Many (I'd say most, but I don't have data, so I'll keep it vague) parents have their own ambitions and want to work in the adult world, or even if not, they find it draining to be solely focused on their children all the time, and need time to be adults. And I think it is very lonely during the day, both for kids and parents, as everyone else in the neighborhood is working or at school. A larger community sharing this work across more children per adult in a community speaks to all these issues, but such a setup just isn't readily available to most people, and it's unclear to me how to make it be. (I always wonder if this is something that draws people to cults. They often seem to have a setup closer to this. If it weren't for all the brainwashing, maybe they'd be onto something.)

delichon 2y ago

> 58% know which gas causes most global warming (carbon dioxide) Actually, it's water vapor. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas overall, being responsible for 41–67% of the greenhouse effect, but its global concentrations are not directly affected by human activity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#:~:text=The%20absorption%20patterns%20of%20water,directly%20affected%20by%20human%20activity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#:~:text=The%2.... Ironic to use a question to judge education quality and then judge by the wrong answer.

mrob 2y ago
This claim relies on an pedantic definition of "causes". The biggest direct cause of global warming is water vapor. However, the main thing affecting water vapor concentration is other greenhouse gases. Therefore the root cause is other greenhouse gases, the most important of which is CO2. Water vapor simply acts as a multiplier to the effect of these other gases.
omnicognate 2y ago
Global warming is the ongoing increase in temperature, which is primarily driven by increasing carbon dioxide levels. It's not the same thing as the greenhouse effect, which is the mechanism by which CO2 and other greenhouse gases affect global temperature. Water vapour is a stronger greenhouse gas but it is not the primary cause of global warming.
- delichon 2y ago
  Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas directly causing the warming of the globe. If the question is, what is the primary cause of the modern differential in the warming of the globe, there's a different answer. But if answering the literal question rather than an implied question is wrong, it's a lousy question.
  - omnicognate 2y ago

poulpy123 2y ago

TL;DR: people remember more factoids when they are recent and/or repeated regularly than when they are old and/or not repeated. Somewhat it's an argument against education (don't ask me why)

difosfor 2y ago

I think you basically remember what you think is important. And school can be a great place to teach you about important things you will probably not pick up at home. If only a fraction of that is permanently added to students lives, it's still a valuable exercise. Of course education is not a constant thing, it keeps changing through time and it sounds like it could be improved. Anyhow I'm personally very happy with the things I've learned in school and the friends I've made there. Sorry to hear about people apparently finding it completely useless.

jacknews 2y ago

OMG these are just a bunch of random facts, and 'learning facts' seems to be the focus of the article. Who cares? Education is not about facts but about building capability. Kids should be taught fundamental facts of course (atoms, place numbers, etc), but really, ways of thinking, systems, techniques, ways to approach problems and find answers, etc.