Those Inbred Finns Keep Getting Stupider

[HoreTore]

everything they learn beyond the age of 13/4 is pretty much useless.

WHAT?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

Pray tell, just when does a human stop learning? I'll give you the answer: around the time of death.

[Rhyfelwyr]

WHAT?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

Pray tell, just when does a human stop learning? I'll give you the answer: around the time of death.

Everything we learn at school, in a classroom, beyond 13/14, is indeed useless. Put more people on useful apprenticeships, they don't need know Arthur Miller's foreshadowing techniques in Death of a Salesman, or how to calculate a tangent off a parabola (or something like that) in order to do whatever jobs they will most likely end up doing.

In fact, I would say our Victorian attitude to education is a very bourgeoisie take on things, that has only widened inequality. In effect, it leaves everyone without pushy parents or a brain for academics without any real skills to make a future with.

[HoreTore]

Everything we learn at school, in a classroom

That is but one of the many platforms in which we learn.

What I believe you are saying, is that we should specialize our learning at an earlier age instead of generalized education. Correct?

[Rhyfelwyr]

That is but one of the many platforms in which we learn.

What I believe you are saying, is that we should specialize our learning at an earlier age instead of generalized education. Correct?

Yes. For many people, that means school won't be the right environment to continue their learning.

[HoreTore]

Yes. For many people, that means school won't be the right environment to continue their learning.

Well then, that is a more agreable position

But I feel I must point out a common misconception(don't know if it applies to you though):

People often talk about how the school is too "theoretical" and that it has to be more "practical" to accomodate "weak" students. "practical" is a bad term IMO, since it is usually connected with something dumb people need, along the lines of "well he's not that bright, but he can use his hands". What it actually is, however, is a recognition if the fact that different people learn in different ways, and that the obvious solution is different learning methods.

Therre are plenty of carpenters(I'd say most in fact) with a much higher understanding of geometry than I do, but who struggled to learn geometry in a classroom situation. Students with a need for a concrete visualization in order to learn are not "dumb" students; they just learn in a diffent way.

I am very much in favour of non-standard methods of teaching. In fact, I believe the "classic" way where a teacher stands at the front holding a lecture should be banned.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am very much in favour of non-standard methods of teaching. In fact, I believe the "classic" way where a teacher stands at the front holding a lecture should be banned.

Indeed, I share your dislike of keeping doing things the same way just for the sake of it. I just don't see the benefit many peopel get from sitting in a classroom during the later years of school learning obscure things that they will never need to employ in their time at work.

Because of the current focus on traditional education, the kids that don't find that effective end up with no option but to drop out. And then no employers will want them, because the only qualifications are the ones you get from the traditional education system.

It just seems blindingly obvious to me that probably a majority of students get nothing from the latter years of their education. I think one of the reasons this issue hasn't been adressed is that politicians are afraid to do it, due to the positive connotations that the word education has. Hence soundbites like "education, education, education".

All very Victorian, all very bourgeoisie. And all not much use for most students today!

[Shibumi]

Everything we learn at school, in a classroom, beyond 13/14, is indeed useless. Put more people on useful apprenticeships, they don't need know Arthur Miller's foreshadowing techniques in Death of a Salesman, or how to calculate a tangent off a parabola (or something like that) in order to do whatever jobs they will most likely end up doing.

In fact, I would say our Victorian attitude to education is a very bourgeoisie take on things, that has only widened inequality. In effect, it leaves everyone without pushy parents or a brain for academics without any real skills to make a future with.

You got it wrong.

We do not, not, not teach the youths about Shakespeare or advances math because they need it. And yes indeed it is wasted on the majority. However, we do teach it to find those who can learn from it.

What do you prefer, to find the kids who belongs in the upper echelon, or to skip past them because their [insert number] other classmates will not get it anyway.

And as a side note, we teach them about the fine arts and advanced science in the hope that it will make them more contributional members of society. Better they know it and dont need it, than them needing it and not knowing it.

Get my point? Or at least one of them?

[Husar]

We do not, not, not teach the youths about Shakespeare or advances math because they need it. And yes indeed it is wasted on the majority. However, we do teach it to find those who can learn from it.

My impression is that school doesn't really teach any advanced math, for some people it's really essential, for some it may seem advanced, but a maths professor usually calls it trivial. Of course that makes it more important to know. It's not just about giving them what they need to do a certain job, as Rhyfelwyr says, but also about making them able citizens which are ready to do a lot of things that go beyond a factory job. A large part of schooling is also about teaching critical thinking, at least it was on our school.

What do you prefer, to find the kids who belongs in the upper echelon, or to skip past them because their [insert number] other classmates will not get it anyway.

I don't really think understanding Shakespeare reveals the upper echelon elite superkids, in many cases the upper echelon elite superkids from space are revealed because they're doing really bad since they're bored.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think Shibumi might have a point here, in that some of the topics covered are not for the general benefit but to offer those who appreciate it a bit extra.
Prime example of such a topic would be Euclidean geometry in a particular Math subject which 14 (before the number dropped to 11) people took from about the 500 people total in a year (technical term is cohort, IIRC).

[Rhyfelwyr]

What do you prefer, to find the kids who belongs in the upper echelon, or to skip past them because their [insert number] other classmates will not get it anyway.

Actually that is precisely what the current system does. Instead of focusing on the brighter kids, it wastes time and funds on kids who simply don't need to know about fine arts or advanced science (in fact, nobody needs to know about fine arts, they are leeches on society).

It tries to level the playing field, and in doing so makes it equally average for everyone. Bright kids can't fulfil their potential. Dumb kids can't even understand it.

But for some people it's got to be this way, all in the name of equality...

[HoreTore]

Actually that is precisely what the current system does. Instead of focusing on the brighter kids, it wastes time and funds on kids who simply don't need to know about fine arts or advanced science (in fact, nobody needs to know about fine arts, they are leeches on society).

It tries to level the playing field, and in doing so makes it equally average for everyone. Bright kids can't fulfil their potential. Dumb kids can't even understand it.

But for some people it's got to be this way, all in the name of equality...

That was a lot of prejudice in a short statement, Rhy....

First off, the main problem with the "bright" kids is that they believe they are smarter than they actually are, if they use more time to think through the assigments they are given they will discover much more. Instead their focus is on finishing.

Secondly, what we know about a student is where he is now. There is absolutely no way of knowing where he will be in the future.

Let's say we have a scale that goes from 1 to 100, 100 representing an "enlightened mind", the goal we strive for. We can then assign our 12-year olds various values and put them on a scale from bad to good. One might be a 17, another might be a 21 and a smart one might be 29. But what does that matter? The goal is to get to 100, and they're all a long way from that target, that some of them is a couple of steps ahead will not matter in the long run. Also, how will you know whether it's the child who is "dumb" or the system that is wrong?

My teacher is an excellent example of this. He got a 2 in Norwegian in high school, which means that he was just above failing the subject. Now he just finished writing his 5th book. Why should the school give up on people like him? He has two masters degrees now, but I'm quite sure you would've classified him as "dumb" if you look at the low grades he got in high school.


That we are "catering to hopless students" and "ruining the bright ones" are among the biggest lies in the education system. I laugh every time I hear it, because I know for a fact that assigments are scaled according to the needs of advanced students. The people who spread this myth probably wasn't one of the bright students who got more difficult assignments, though their ego's make them believe that they're the next Einstein.

[gaelic cowboy]

That we are "catering to hopless students" and "ruining the bright ones" are among the biggest lies in the education system. I laugh every time I hear it, because I know for a fact that assigments are scaled according to the needs of advanced students. The people who spread this myth probably wasn't one of the bright students who got more difficult assignments, though their ego's make them believe that they're the next Einstein.

For some weird reason we have a major thing in the West where people act counter to there own interests.

I'm thinking of people on low incomes in America thinking the Tea Party is for them or students in Europe marching to protect highly paid civil servants.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There was also a lot of prejudice in what you just said HoreTore, at the end of the day there is probably some truth in what we are both saying, whether it is prejudiced or not. I mean, all bright kids think they are smarter than they are... really? All of them just want to finish the assignment without really pushing themselves?

That whole scale thing you came up with is completely artibtrary. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that every person has a level, after which they just can't take in any more advanced information. I know you are idealistic with these things, but reality has got to kick in. You can try every technique under the sun, but you just can't make a retard understand Shakespeare.

As for the example with your teacher, that seems to me simply proof that the current focus on traditional education is a waste of time for people like him. Don't hold him back in a classroom, let him do his own thing. Don't abandon him by any means, but by the time he has learned his reading/writing/arithmetic, is should be clear whether or not traditional schooling is for him.

As for the bias in exams... you can only attribute that to the failings of students so far. Again, it seems to me to just be proof of how out of touch traditional education is with the needs of most people.

You can talk about bias in exams or different teaching techniques, but at the end of the day these are all particular matters and dont' address the fundemanetal problem, which for me is the fact that 90% of what I learned beyond the age of 14 was a waste of my time and taxpayers' money.

[HoreTore]

The thing is, Rhy, that there is absolutely no way of knowing where our students will be in the future, we have no way of knowing their true potential. We can only assess the current situation, and as such we can't have any other focus than to try to make them take the next step, and try teaching it a different way if needed.



By the way, a question for you: would you think that an average 9-year old would be able to learn nevrobiology at a level where they could hold lectures about the subject?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

WHAT?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?

Pray tell, just when does a human stop learning? I'll give you the answer: around the time of death.

or of election to public office.