Widespread Education

[Winchester]

I submit that the idea behind attempting to educate everyone sprang out of the philosophy that demanded the destruction of the aristoracy. The idea (consciously stated or not) was to make everyone an aristocrat. Whether or not this is possible, I leave aside; what I do state is that the modern American education system does not pursue this goal, but instead simply "trains" children. It trains them in math, some history and science and (in a grossly diminishing quantity) physical prowess. It does not educate or enlighten them. It does not teach them to think. This is why our nation is in an intellectual descent.

I am aware there are philsophy courses and some philosophers are discussed briefly in elementary through high school, but I don't think there's any real attempt to make children into thinkers. Further, I think schools discourage that. I think they come up with nice ideas and then encourage students to "think" of ways to fulfill this nice idea without questioning the idea itself. For instance: "No place for hate" slogans, which seem to ignore the fact that some things are quite worthy of hate (in a completely vulgar sense, not the moral/theological meaning of the word), or seem to be. Hate is presumed bad, no explanation is really given and then it becomes bad to hate. It's even worse than it would be because the concept of hate is distorted generally to mean disagreement with some stance or another. Sloppy langauge is the order of the day.

I submit that the only suitable purpose of widespread, long term (12 years is a damned long time) education is to teach children to become aristocrats--that is people capable of true thought, useful skepticism and leadership (clearly of varying degrees). Everything else is simply training, which can be focused more toward areas of interest without giving people the illusion that they've received something they've not.

[Archaeology cat]

I'm inclined to agree, I think. I hadn't thought of it in these terms before, really, but do feel that many school are churning out cultural idiots by teaching to a test. You don't necessarily have to think in order to pass a test, provided you've been trained to take a test.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Archaeology cat

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' date='03 February 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1265222549' post='2050516']I am aware there are philsophy courses and some philosophers are discussed briefly in elementary through high school, but I don't think there's any real attempt to make children into thinkers. Further, I think schools discourage that. I think they come up with nice ideas and then encourage students to "think" of ways to fulfill this nice idea without questioning the idea itself. For instance: "No place for hate" slogans, which seem to ignore the fact that some things are quite worthy of hate (in a completely vulgar sense, not the moral/theological meaning of the word), or seem to be. Hate is presumed bad, no explanation is really given and then it becomes bad to hate. It's even worse than it would be because the concept of hate is distorted generally to mean disagreement with some stance or another. Sloppy langauge is the order of the day.[/quote]
I think part of the problem is precisely this idea that we have to "make children into thinkers." Children are born thinkers. Put an object before a child, and immediately the child is picking it up and trying to figure out what it is. Humans are naturally curious. But we have this belief that humans are born in need of "education," and we think that society has to "educate" them. Rather than allowing children to find their way in life in the context of family and community, we feel the need to institutionalize children so that we can control the course of their lives. We no longer respect and trust family and community; we put our respect and trust in institutions.

Modern schools are inherently manipulative and controlling. They dictate what you are supposed to learn, when you are supposed to learn it, with whom you are supposed to learn it, etc. And this is largely based on modern ideas about childhood (e.g., our extension of childhood to higher and higher ages). We do not allow young people a place in the community; we keep them isolated in schools. For young people to be functioning members of the community would require society to recognize and respect the freedom of young people (of course, freedom implies personal responsibility to family and community). But modern ideas about childhood take away all freedom from young people...we think that they need to be placed in schools, that they need to be "educated" and "trained" before they can take their place in the community (and who knows what an "adult" is these days...college students are practically considered children).

Regarding your point about aristocracy, it's interesting that modern schooling creates a new aristocracy. The new aristocratic status is based on how many years you've spent in a schooling institution. Nothing brands you as a peasant worse than dropping out of school.

[quote name='Winchester' date='03 February 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1265222549' post='2050516']I submit that the only suitable purpose of widespread, long term (12 years is a damned long time) education is to teach children to become aristocrats--that is people capable of true thought, useful skepticism and leadership (clearly of varying degrees). Everything else is simply training, which can be focused more toward areas of interest without giving people the illusion that they've received something they've not.[/quote]
I don't believe that there is any justification for making education mandatory in society. If you take away mandatory education, people think that the world will end. But we only believe that because we've bought into the myth that human beings are helpless without massive institutions like modern schools. We are addicted to institutions.

Modern schools are, among other things, a reflection of our culture of endless consumption. Our society creates supposed "needs" that are not really needs. So, for example, we think we we "need" cable television, that we "need" Twitter and iPods, that we "need" mandatory schools, etc. Once we are accustomed to these things, we turn them into "needs," and so our desire to consume them becomes endless, and society's production of them becomes endless. Rather than questioning the very existence of modern schooling, we just assume that modern schooling is necessary, so we will do everything we can to get more people to become consumers of modern schooling, and society will endlessly produce more schooling for our consumption.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' date='03 February 2010 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1265229909' post='2050609']
Regarding your point about aristocracy, it's interesting that modern schooling creates a new aristocracy. The new aristocratic status is based on how many years you've spent in a schooling institution. Nothing brands you as a peasant worse than dropping out of school.[/quote]
It doesn't create an aristocracy, though. This is the problem. There is no aristocracy and education, which should bring up such a group, is designed merely to dump information into children. There are those who attempt to indoctrinate, but it's so disoragnized that it's merely many years of running a gauntlet.

[quote]
I don't believe that there is any justification for making education mandatory in society. If you take away mandatory education, people think that the world will end. But we only believe that because we've bought into the myth that human beings are helpless without massive institutions like modern schools. We are addicted to institutions.[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]
Imagine if society were to recognize peoples' freedom and independence, and would stop trying to plan and control their lives through institutions. That would be a dangerous course of action, because once you say that society has no right to dictate what, when, or how we learn, then that threatens the entire basis of modern society. Modern schools are, among other things, a reflection of our culture of endless consumption. Our society creates supposed "needs" that are not really needs. So, for example, we think we we "need" cable television, that we "need" Twitter and iPods, that we "need" mandatory schools, etc. Once we are accustomed to these things, we turn them into "needs," and so our desire to consume them becomes endless. Rather than questioning the very existence of modern schooling, we just assume that modern schooling is necessary, so we will do everything we can to get more people to become consumers of modern schooling.
[/quote]
It is self-perpetuating. Children are not taught to question. They're taught to store information. Mediocrity is the new excellence.

[homeschoolmom]

[Arpy]

What do you advise for those of us caught in the system in some way?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' date='03 February 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1265230970' post='2050614']Children are not taught to question. They're taught to store information.[/quote]
It's not just that they don't know how to question. They aren't even given the opportunity to do so. If you put two people together who don't know how to question, they can at least begin to learn how to question just by asking each other questions. It helps to have an experienced third-party there who can pose questions as well, but without imposing questions or determining the course or topic of the conversation.

Rather than letting students explore questions and subjects and concerns that actually matter TO THEM (that are of the students' own initiative), students are instead required to answer questions and learn about subjects and read books and discuss concerns that the schooling institution imposes on them.

So, take science as an example. Science is all about free exploration. What happens if I do this? Why is this a certain way? Students are not free to ask such questions. They are given experiments and procedures beforehand, and are working toward a pre-determined result. Likewise, in literature students are assigned books and essay questions. We think that students have to know certain books by a certain age. Why? Let the students read what's interesting to them. Let them explore. Let them write about whatever they want.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Arpy' date='03 February 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1265232796' post='2050675']
What do you advise for those of us caught in the system in some way?
[/quote]
Hold your soul tight and never ever loosen the grip.

[Winchester]

Some exploration is fine, but without discipline, it won't be as effective.

[ThePenciledOne]

Amen Winchester Amen.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' date='03 February 2010 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1265244112' post='2050868']
Some exploration is fine, but without discipline, it won't be as effective.
[/quote]
I have no problem with guidance (and in fact, it is crucial to our lives), but true guidance respects freedom and independence. A guide should guide, pose questions, share expertise and experience. But a guide is not to be confused with the modern "teacher." The modern teacher's authority over the student is based solely on being in a role of authority. But a guide/mentor/elder/advisor holds authority because others respect his expertise/wisdom/knowledge, and they freely seek it out.

Part of the problem in modern society is that we only value exploration when it is done in the presence of someone with institutional authority. The modern classroom prevents students from engaging each other. Even in "class discussions," the teacher is always lurking in the background. Students are conditioned to channel their learning through the structures of the schooling institution.

Getting together at a coffee shop to discuss a book is seen as informative leisure, but not as "serious" learning. We have this mentality that "serious" learning only takes place at a schooling institution, under the watchful eye of an institutionalized "teacher."

[CatherineM]

I think bringing back the idea of highschool vo-tech would help.

[Veridicus]

I'm in my 19th year of education and I was never taught [i]how [/i]to think. I was only taught [i][b]what [/b][/i]to think. In most liberal arts/philosophy courses where there could be a genuine opportunity for real thought, you instead have a generation of liberal pedagogues who's didacticism can easily be summarized as thus: "You're only a free-thinker if you disregard what any traditional institution has taught you and instead think what I tell you to think. If you pander to my point of view, you'll get an A."

My wife stopped writing what she thought in an Ethics course and instead started just repeating what trite leftist views her professor was peddling. Lo & Behold her essays went from C-quality to A-quality. She just had to adopt the teacher's perspective.

[Winchester]

A proper school would combine both education and training. There is some information we need, but without knowing what to do with it, it's useless. This is why our Supreme Court has problems--they have knowledge of the laws, but they don't seem to know the origin or purpose of laws, or that it's even a question.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Era Might' date='03 February 2010 - 09:33 PM' timestamp='1265232805' post='2050676']
It's not just that they don't know how to question. They aren't even given the opportunity to do so. If you put two people together who don't know how to question, they can at least begin to learn how to question just by asking each other questions. It helps to have an experienced third-party there who can pose questions as well, but without imposing questions or determining the course or topic of the conversation.

Rather than letting students explore questions and subjects and concerns that actually matter TO THEM (that are of the students' own initiative), students are instead required to answer questions and learn about subjects and read books and discuss concerns that the schooling institution imposes on them.

So, take science as an example. Science is all about free exploration. What happens if I do this? Why is this a certain way? Students are not free to ask such questions. They are given experiments and procedures beforehand, and are working toward a pre-determined result. Likewise, in literature students are assigned books and essay questions. We think that students have to know certain books by a certain age. Why? Let the students read what's interesting to them. Let them explore. Let them write about whatever they want.
[/quote]
You definitely should look into autonomous education/unschooling.

[quote name='Veridicus' date='04 February 2010 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1265248490' post='2050897']
I'm in my 19th year of education and I was never taught [i]how [/i]to think. I was only taught [i][b]what [/b][/i]to think. In most liberal arts/philosophy courses where there could be a genuine opportunity for real thought, you instead have a generation of liberal pedagogues who's didacticism can easily be summarized as thus: "You're only a free-thinker if you disregard what any traditional institution has taught you and instead think what I tell you to think. If you pander to my point of view, you'll get an A."
[/quote]
I've been lucky enough to have some good teachers/professors who did encourage me to think for myself and didn't shoot down my ideas. But they're in the minority. A couple from high school, and some at UE and Liverpool.