19 ms·

I agree with many (though not all) of your points. But I beg to differ on this one: 12) Why assume that we need high school. We got through the 19th century ju

I agree with many (though not all) of your points. But I beg to differ on this one: 12) Why assume that we need high school. We got through the 19th century just fine without it. What changed? The complexity of the world changes. The minimum amount of education required to function well in society increases with it. (In particular, knowledge with basic sciences and technological skills.) An average person, though not everyone, would need more time to absorb information and skills to prepare for adult life. Schooling might not be the best means to train them, but until an viable alternative is implemented, we still need those extra years.

bokonist 18y ago
I used to believe this but now I think the opposite. Technology obviates the needs to learn many skills. Some 18th century skills I no longer need to know: sewing, soap making, farming, canning, penmanship, spelling, using a slide rule, long division. I work in software, but I no longer have to learn assembly or C. I don't actually need to learn anything more than my dad did, because I stand on his shoulders. I just learn different things. In fact, the definition of technological process is when a process becomes so good you can use it as an abstraction layer to build the next process on top of it. You can also took at the most technically skilled people from the 18th century - architects, civil engineers, mechanical engineers. Their jobs were just as complex as the modern equivalents. Yet probably half of them entered their profession with no education beyond grade school. They learned on the job. Schooling might not be the best means to train them, but until an viable alternative is implemented, we still need those extra years. Schooling does not provide any training at all for 95% of the jobs in the market. Most people learn everything on the job.

bokonist 18y ago

I used to believe this but now I think the opposite. Technology obviates the needs to learn many skills. Some 18th century skills I no longer need to know: sewing, soap making, farming, canning, penmanship, spelling, using a slide rule, long division. I work in software, but I no longer have to learn assembly or C. I don't actually need to learn anything more than my dad did, because I stand on his shoulders. I just learn different things. In fact, the definition of technological process is when a process becomes so good you can use it as an abstraction layer to build the next process on top of it. You can also took at the most technically skilled people from the 18th century - architects, civil engineers, mechanical engineers. Their jobs were just as complex as the modern equivalents. Yet probably half of them entered their profession with no education beyond grade school. They learned on the job. Schooling might not be the best means to train them, but until an viable alternative is implemented, we still need those extra years. Schooling does not provide any training at all for 95% of the jobs in the market. Most people learn everything on the job.