The education system

[Sarpedon]

I've long since despaired of making ethical arguments to conservatives; Greed is their only value, hatred their only passion. You can only gain traction when you make economic ones, and all too frequently they disregard those due to their psychopathic hatred of the poor.

 

[Politesse]

There's also the issue of preserving the knowledge itself. Not much of a priority these days, not even by those who run the schools, but I think it should be. Unused knowledge can and has been lost to history. You can talk about liberals and conservatives, but religious pro-capitalism is not, on my experience, limited to one faction alone.

 

[Elixir]

I've long since despaired of making ethical arguments to conservatives; Greed is their only value, hatred their only passion. You can only gain traction when you make economic ones, and all too frequently they disregard those due to their psychopathic hatred of the poor.

I despair of ever curing the conservative disease... it is literally a disease, as in lack of ease. Any reduction in the wealth gap between a conservative and the huddled masses of the truly impoverished, is felt as a visceral lack of ease. Doesn't matter if the threat to that gap is an increase in the welfare of the very poor or a reduction of their own wealth; it's the same thing, i.e. it makes them more like "the others". This zero-sum view of the world is an evolutionary artifact that resides in all of us. Succumbing to though, is a symptom of intellectual sloth - an attribute that is the very hallmark of the conservative establishment as it exists today.

 

[rousseau]

It is important to expose children to a wide variety of experiences, because you never know which child might end up being talented in one thing.

I shudder to think how much human genius we squander in this country thanks to our terrible schools.

(point made in two sentences)

It's not too far off the mark, but I wouldn't emphasize the same things as you. I feel like we shouldn't think of education primarily as a way of producing talented people, or generating a resource of geniuses to benefit ourselves as a society. Education is a boon to the one who is educated first and foremost, and not just because she can earn more money by being useful to an employer. We should value the ability to expose ourselves to diverse knowledge and experience merely for the joy of it; even if you could get more talented geniuses some other way, it would still be worth having a comprehensive social investment in education, because it makes life more enjoyable in ways that aren't fully captured by the ability to serve as problem-solvers (which is also important, don't get me wrong).

Eh, I've seen a lot of people come out of a liberal education more confused than when they came in.

In Canada only about 22% of people have the skills to make it to college. And of those it's likely that the overwhelming number are only there to get a certification and a job, and don't critically engage with the material. At worst you have people who pick a major due to pre-conceived notions, and accept absolutely everything they hear verbatim.

I hate to be the pessimist, but education as a social tool so people can engage with knowledge seems a rationalist's pipe-dream. The majority of humanity doesn't care for knowledge, only making as much money as they can with minimal effort.

And it shouldn't be any other way - knowledge without utility has very little value for the person who's struggling to survive. Real education is the playground of the wealthy.

 

[Sarpedon]

So much more reason for public education to show a variety of experiences: because for lots of people, that's all they'll get, and really, we ought to get rid of the focus on college prep, and remove the stigma of trade school.

Finding out aptitude and interest, and helping the student develop them, whether they are elite skills or not should be the focus of public education. Graduates with useful skills in fields they are interested in will be happier and more successful than those who go on to college just because it is expected of them.

 

[PyramidHead]

It is important to expose children to a wide variety of experiences, because you never know which child might end up being talented in one thing.

I shudder to think how much human genius we squander in this country thanks to our terrible schools.

(point made in two sentences)

It's not too far off the mark, but I wouldn't emphasize the same things as you. I feel like we shouldn't think of education primarily as a way of producing talented people, or generating a resource of geniuses to benefit ourselves as a society. Education is a boon to the one who is educated first and foremost, and not just because she can earn more money by being useful to an employer. We should value the ability to expose ourselves to diverse knowledge and experience merely for the joy of it; even if you could get more talented geniuses some other way, it would still be worth having a comprehensive social investment in education, because it makes life more enjoyable in ways that aren't fully captured by the ability to serve as problem-solvers (which is also important, don't get me wrong).

Eh, I've seen a lot of people come out of a liberal education more confused than when they came in.

In Canada only about 22% of people have the skills to make it to college. And of those it's likely that the overwhelming number are only there to get a certification and a job, and don't critically engage with the material. At worst you have people who pick a major due to pre-conceived notions, and accept absolutely everything they hear verbatim.

I hate to be the pessimist, but education as a social tool so people can engage with knowledge seems a rationalist's pipe-dream. The majority of humanity doesn't care for knowledge, only making as much money as they can with minimal effort.

And it shouldn't be any other way - knowledge without utility has very little value for the person who's struggling to survive. Real education is the playground of the wealthy.

How can you not see that the bolded is a direct consequence of bad education, and not an immutable feature of human psychology?

 

[rousseau]

Eh, I've seen a lot of people come out of a liberal education more confused than when they came in.

In Canada only about 22% of people have the skills to make it to college. And of those it's likely that the overwhelming number are only there to get a certification and a job, and don't critically engage with the material. At worst you have people who pick a major due to pre-conceived notions, and accept absolutely everything they hear verbatim.

I hate to be the pessimist, but education as a social tool so people can engage with knowledge seems a rationalist's pipe-dream. The majority of humanity doesn't care for knowledge, only making as much money as they can with minimal effort.

And it shouldn't be any other way - knowledge without utility has very little value for the person who's struggling to survive. Real education is the playground of the wealthy.

How can you not see that the bolded is a direct consequence of bad education, and not an immutable feature of human psychology?

What I'm suggesting is exactly that this is an immutable feature of human psychology. Why should an animal evolve that expends excess energy on tasks that have no relationship with either their survival or reproduction?

Have you seen how students approach their electives?

 

[rousseau]

So much more reason for public education to show a variety of experiences: because for lots of people, that's all they'll get, and really, we ought to get rid of the focus on college prep, and remove the stigma of trade school.

Finding out aptitude and interest, and helping the student develop them, whether they are elite skills or not should be the focus of public education. Graduates with useful skills in fields they are interested in will be happier and more successful than those who go on to college just because it is expected of them.

I agree with all of this.

Students, especially young ones need exposure to what's out there, and especially the mechanics of adulthood. And I don't think we should go as far as not exposing kids to knowledge for knowledge sake, actually quite the opposite. But I have no illusions that better schools are going to turn fish into monkeys.

The core of any issues with education, I think, is that the very people running these systems have no idea what's wrong with them. People have a tendency to accept the status quo without a lot of introspection, so it takes a bit of a political/intellectual giant to change things - and the combination of those qualities is rare.

 

[PyramidHead]

Eh, I've seen a lot of people come out of a liberal education more confused than when they came in.

In Canada only about 22% of people have the skills to make it to college. And of those it's likely that the overwhelming number are only there to get a certification and a job, and don't critically engage with the material. At worst you have people who pick a major due to pre-conceived notions, and accept absolutely everything they hear verbatim.

I hate to be the pessimist, but education as a social tool so people can engage with knowledge seems a rationalist's pipe-dream. The majority of humanity doesn't care for knowledge, only making as much money as they can with minimal effort.

And it shouldn't be any other way - knowledge without utility has very little value for the person who's struggling to survive. Real education is the playground of the wealthy.

How can you not see that the bolded is a direct consequence of bad education, and not an immutable feature of human psychology?

What I'm suggesting is exactly that this is an immutable feature of human psychology. Why should an animal evolve that expends excess energy on tasks that have no relationship with either their survival or reproduction?

Have you seen how students approach their electives?

You have a narrow view of evolutionary change and material conditions. The impulse to learn about the world and everything in it, regardless of anticipated financial benefit, is the very same one that drives people to explore new places without a clear destination, to play with ideas that don't lead anywhere concrete, and to be curious about social interactions they perceive to be novel and non-threatening. In other words, the drive to learn for the sake of learning is eminently natural, as is to be expected, since evolution equips animals with broad "rules of thumb" (be nice to people you encounter, be protective of little things that look alive, be inquisitive about your surroundings) and not specific dictates (only do things that directly lead to reproductive success).

 

[rousseau]

The impulse to learn about the world and everything in it, regardless of anticipated financial benefit, is the very same one that drives people to explore new places without a clear destination, to play with ideas that don't lead anywhere concrete, and to be curious about social interactions they perceive to be novel and non-threatening.

I don't think this is true. It is true of some people, but only a small subset. Likely a subset of sensitive introverts who enjoy reading books, and even many of those will gravitate to fiction.

The average American reads about 5 books a year, I'll let you take a stab at the percentage of those being Stephen King novels.

 

[PyramidHead]

The impulse to learn about the world and everything in it, regardless of anticipated financial benefit, is the very same one that drives people to explore new places without a clear destination, to play with ideas that don't lead anywhere concrete, and to be curious about social interactions they perceive to be novel and non-threatening.

I don't think this is true. It is true of some people, but only a small subset. Likely a subset of sensitive introverts who enjoy reading books, and even many of those will gravitate to fiction.

The average American reads about 5 books a year, I'll let you take a stab at the percentage of those being Stephen King novels.

That's not evidence of anything except the failure of American education, which is precisely the topic of this thread. What's wrong with reading fiction??

 

[rousseau]

The impulse to learn about the world and everything in it, regardless of anticipated financial benefit, is the very same one that drives people to explore new places without a clear destination, to play with ideas that don't lead anywhere concrete, and to be curious about social interactions they perceive to be novel and non-threatening.

I don't think this is true. It is true of some people, but only a small subset. Likely a subset of sensitive introverts who enjoy reading books, and even many of those will gravitate to fiction.

The average American reads about 5 books a year, I'll let you take a stab at the percentage of those being Stephen King novels.

That's not evidence of anything except the failure of American education, which is precisely the topic of this thread. What's wrong with reading fiction??

There's nothing wrong with reading fiction, but let's not pretend that it's indicative of the impulse to learn about the world and everything in it. Reading fiction is usually no different than watching TV.

I'm not trying to be the pessimist, just the realist.

 

[PyramidHead]

That's not evidence of anything except the failure of American education, which is precisely the topic of this thread. What's wrong with reading fiction??

There's nothing wrong with reading fiction, but let's not pretend that it's indicative of the impulse to learn about the world and everything in it. Reading fiction is usually no different than watching TV.

I'm not trying to be the pessimist, just the realist.

I think you're reading (no pun intended) too much into surveys about book-reading in America, even though books are by no means the only way to learn about the world, and making conclusions about homo sapiens across time and over the whole globe. People don't need a financial reason to find out things about their environment and delve into subjects that interest them. They just need the free time and energy to consider it worth doing, and control over the pace and direction of their learning. It's no surprise that the average American doesn't show much interest in knowledge per se, as they lack all those things.

 

[rousseau]

That's not evidence of anything except the failure of American education, which is precisely the topic of this thread. What's wrong with reading fiction??

There's nothing wrong with reading fiction, but let's not pretend that it's indicative of the impulse to learn about the world and everything in it. Reading fiction is usually no different than watching TV.

I'm not trying to be the pessimist, just the realist.

I think you're reading (no pun intended) too much into surveys about book-reading in America, even though books are by no means the only way to learn about the world, and making conclusions about homo sapiens across time and over the whole globe. People don't need a financial reason to find out things about their environment and delve into subjects that interest them. They just need the free time and energy to consider it worth doing, and control over the pace and direction of their learning. It's no surprise that the average American doesn't show much interest in knowledge per se, as they lack all those things.

That's exactly my point, useless knowledge isn't helpful for people who are struggling to survive in the world. But that struggling isn't a minor condition that we can just get over, it's quite literally what it's meant to exist in the world for the entirety of our species history, and the history of every other animal. So what that means isn't just that we don't have time to learn, but also that we've evolved to ignore anything that has no material incentive.

Let me ask you this: if people have a natural predisposition to learn, why should they need an education system to bring it out? Wouldn't it just occur naturally?

 

[PyramidHead]

I think you're reading (no pun intended) too much into surveys about book-reading in America, even though books are by no means the only way to learn about the world, and making conclusions about homo sapiens across time and over the whole globe. People don't need a financial reason to find out things about their environment and delve into subjects that interest them. They just need the free time and energy to consider it worth doing, and control over the pace and direction of their learning. It's no surprise that the average American doesn't show much interest in knowledge per se, as they lack all those things.

That's exactly my point, useless knowledge isn't helpful for people who are struggling to survive in the world. But that struggling isn't a minor condition that we can just get over, it's quite literally what it's meant to exist in the world for the entirety of our species history, and the history of every other animal. So what that means isn't just that we don't have time to learn, but also that we've evolved to ignore anything that has no material incentive.

There isn't a shred of evidence to support that. We evolved in ways that reflected our environment, both in times of frantic activity and when resources allowed for open-ended exploration. We evolved behaviors like mind-wandering, dreaming, play, improvisation, and so forth. This is because we don't know ahead of time what may be beneficial for our survival, and having an impulse to discover that rather than being closed to it is what enabled us to get this far.

Let me ask you this: if people have a natural predisposition to learn, why should they need an education system to bring it out? Wouldn't it just occur naturally?

Who says it doesn't? The lack of interest in learning is an outcome of both inadequate educational institutions AND external pressures that stifle or subjugate the natural desire to learn. Lessen the external pressures and people will learn in the ways they deem pleasurable, which may not be visible from the perspective of an educational system that prioritizes occupational proficiency over all else.

 

[rousseau]

There isn't a shred of evidence to support that. We evolved in ways that reflected our environment, both in times of frantic activity and when resources allowed for open-ended exploration. We evolved behaviors like mind-wandering, dreaming, play, improvisation, and so forth. This is because we don't know ahead of time what may be beneficial for our survival, and having an impulse to discover that rather than being closed to it is what enabled us to get this far.

The basic observation of literally any living thing for an extended period of time will reveal our propensity for positive material outcomes.

Yes, people are driven to discover, but they are driven to discover things that help them materially. Knowledge for knowledge sake is rarely that thing, unless it's explicit and focused on something relevant.

Let me ask you this: if people have a natural predisposition to learn, why should they need an education system to bring it out? Wouldn't it just occur naturally?

Who says it doesn't? The lack of interest in learning is an outcome of both inadequate educational institutions AND external pressures that stifle or subjugate the natural desire to learn. Lessen the external pressures and people will learn in the ways they deem pleasurable, which may not be visible from the perspective of an educational system that prioritizes occupational proficiency over all else.

You said that it doesn't. You admitted that people don't display an interest in learning, and also that they need education to bring it out. But at the same time you seem to argue that people have a natural disposition to learn for learning's sake.

So what's stopping people from going to the used bookstore and spending 10 dollars on Hume, rather than the latest Spiderman film?

 

[Horatio Parker]

I did a year in the NYC schools as a teaching artist. It was generally felt among the teachers in my school that the arts not only provided an outlet, but improved student performance in academic subjects.

 

[PyramidHead]

The basic observation of literally any living thing for an extended period of time will reveal our propensity for positive material outcomes.

Yes, people are driven to discover, but they are driven to discover things that help them materially. Knowledge for knowledge sake is rarely that thing, unless it's explicit and focused on something relevant.

Who says it doesn't? The lack of interest in learning is an outcome of both inadequate educational institutions AND external pressures that stifle or subjugate the natural desire to learn. Lessen the external pressures and people will learn in the ways they deem pleasurable, which may not be visible from the perspective of an educational system that prioritizes occupational proficiency over all else.

You said that it doesn't. You admitted that people don't display an interest in learning, and also that they need education to bring it out. But at the same time you seem to argue that people have a natural disposition to learn for learning's sake.

So what's stopping people from going to the used bookstore and spending 10 dollars on Hume, rather than the latest Spiderman film?

Their behavior is not a direct outflow from some innate disposition towards Spider-Man. Is there massive, flashy advertising on all media outlets of the works of David Hume? Partnerships with fast food companies and auto manufacturers? Do the economic conditions in our society favor the consumption of book-length analyses, or do they provoke us to seek out short bursts of entertaining spectacle that reinforce the dominant ideology while distracting us from its negative effects? I'm not arguing that everybody is innately MORE interested in Hume than Spider-Man, but you seem to be arguing that seeing the newest Spider-Man movie is perfectly understandable even if we can't identify the material benefit of doing so, while reading about philosophy needs an explicit link to material gain in order for humans to do it.

 

[rousseau]

The basic observation of literally any living thing for an extended period of time will reveal our propensity for positive material outcomes.

Yes, people are driven to discover, but they are driven to discover things that help them materially. Knowledge for knowledge sake is rarely that thing, unless it's explicit and focused on something relevant.

Who says it doesn't? The lack of interest in learning is an outcome of both inadequate educational institutions AND external pressures that stifle or subjugate the natural desire to learn. Lessen the external pressures and people will learn in the ways they deem pleasurable, which may not be visible from the perspective of an educational system that prioritizes occupational proficiency over all else.

You said that it doesn't. You admitted that people don't display an interest in learning, and also that they need education to bring it out. But at the same time you seem to argue that people have a natural disposition to learn for learning's sake.

So what's stopping people from going to the used bookstore and spending 10 dollars on Hume, rather than the latest Spiderman film?

Their behavior is not a direct outflow from some innate disposition towards Spider-Man. Is there massive, flashy advertising on all media outlets of the works of David Hume? Partnerships with fast food companies and auto manufacturers? Do the economic conditions in our society favor the consumption of book-length analyses, or do they provoke us to seek out short bursts of entertaining spectacle that reinforce the dominant ideology while distracting us from its negative effects? I'm not arguing that everybody is innately MORE interested in Hume than Spider-Man, but you seem to be arguing that seeing the newest Spider-Man movie is perfectly understandable even if we can't identify the material benefit of doing so, while reading about philosophy needs an explicit link to material gain in order for humans to do it.

I'm sure if advertisers could make hundreds of millions of dollars selling Hume, they'd certainly be doing it.

 

[PyramidHead]

Their behavior is not a direct outflow from some innate disposition towards Spider-Man. Is there massive, flashy advertising on all media outlets of the works of David Hume? Partnerships with fast food companies and auto manufacturers? Do the economic conditions in our society favor the consumption of book-length analyses, or do they provoke us to seek out short bursts of entertaining spectacle that reinforce the dominant ideology while distracting us from its negative effects? I'm not arguing that everybody is innately MORE interested in Hume than Spider-Man, but you seem to be arguing that seeing the newest Spider-Man movie is perfectly understandable even if we can't identify the material benefit of doing so, while reading about philosophy needs an explicit link to material gain in order for humans to do it.

I'm sure if advertisers could make hundreds of millions of dollars selling Hume, they'd certainly be doing it.

...yeah, and the reason they can't isn't because of anything about human preferences from birth, it's about capitalism and its specific cultural buttresses. Everything you're saying is consistent with my view that humans will learn even if they aren't doing it to prepare for a job if the prevailing conditions don't actively discourage it.