Rebuttal to Arrash's article
This was too big to post as a response comment.
Intriguing article my friend. A few thoughts:
Wilson was not president of Princeton until the 1890s. Kind of a time lapse there, not a big deal and easy to fix. He was also very white supremecist, very much not a person of equal footing for all.
Just because our system came from Prussia doesn't mean it's still meant to repress people. People aren't prevented from reading until they're seven; it's actually widely encouraged to start early and read often.
It is widely known and accepted that educated people are more functional in the society in which they live. True, as you have said, people could go get independent educations, free from any kind of governmental control, at private institutions. This would more than likely cost more than they would pay in taxes to support the present public schools. So it would cost more. Not to mention not nearly as many people would have the kind of drive required to obtain an education if it weren't mandatory. True, they're doing this to themselves, and possibly deserve what they get, but the fact that they are now just short of illiterate harms society in general. The literacty rate would fall dramatically, meaning that the lesser or uneducated masses that would normally fill in the infrastructural jobs (bus/taxi drivers, garbagemen, trade jobs) would not be smart enough to communicate effectively to the rest of the population.
--
"This is what our system of schooling prepares us for: a lack of ability to think for ourselves."
I beg to differ. Schools have a better motivation to get us to think for ourselves than they do for us to think like clones: the more of us that get into college because of our ability to think (combination of test scores and ability to put thoughts together in writing), the better reputation a school will get, and thus better funding.
You yourself are a product of this system you hate so much, yet you can think clearly. As can I. This may be due to some other factor, genetics, upbringing, whatever else, but we don't account for the other 64% (USA today) of people getting into and going to college. They must be part of some education system.
Not to say there aren't flaws. Education has a nasty little habit of teaching to lowest common denominator (see CASHEE)and leaving those who are too low behind. That's for another rant later.
--
"...the same purpose it was in Prussia-as a tool for the division of children by subject, age, rankings, and grading; thus hopelessly separating the lives of the proletariat as a whole."
You're the one talking about being an individualist. Separation of students by what they're good at is what makes our society work better. I'm not terribly good at English, thus I should not be thrust into an English teaching profession, it would be inefficient and dumb. We separate people by age because of maturity and psychological development. You of all people should be able to tell the difference between Seniors and Juniors, and sophs, and freshmen, being as observant as you are.
Rankings and grades drastically dumb down and quantify the typical student, but if you have no chance to excel and do well, there is no incentive to even try in the first place.
Our society works as a meritocracy, (a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement; m-w.com), which provides ample incentive to try and think outside the box to further oneself, and to those of us who are morally obligated, others also. People trying to do their best in order to come out on top also has the convenient effect of being beneficial to the society as a whole as well. If everyone in the country (school, state, world, anything) tries to do their best (usually by thinking), everyone wins.
Most people like to think that what they do has some kind of purpose to it. What better than doing something that benefits the greater good? The school? The country? The world? What good is free-thinking or radical new ideas if they don't help anyone in the end?
I probably didn't make it seem that way, but good article, Arrash. Needless to say, I do disagree with you.
Intriguing article my friend. A few thoughts:
Wilson was not president of Princeton until the 1890s. Kind of a time lapse there, not a big deal and easy to fix. He was also very white supremecist, very much not a person of equal footing for all.
Just because our system came from Prussia doesn't mean it's still meant to repress people. People aren't prevented from reading until they're seven; it's actually widely encouraged to start early and read often.
It is widely known and accepted that educated people are more functional in the society in which they live. True, as you have said, people could go get independent educations, free from any kind of governmental control, at private institutions. This would more than likely cost more than they would pay in taxes to support the present public schools. So it would cost more. Not to mention not nearly as many people would have the kind of drive required to obtain an education if it weren't mandatory. True, they're doing this to themselves, and possibly deserve what they get, but the fact that they are now just short of illiterate harms society in general. The literacty rate would fall dramatically, meaning that the lesser or uneducated masses that would normally fill in the infrastructural jobs (bus/taxi drivers, garbagemen, trade jobs) would not be smart enough to communicate effectively to the rest of the population.
--
"This is what our system of schooling prepares us for: a lack of ability to think for ourselves."
I beg to differ. Schools have a better motivation to get us to think for ourselves than they do for us to think like clones: the more of us that get into college because of our ability to think (combination of test scores and ability to put thoughts together in writing), the better reputation a school will get, and thus better funding.
You yourself are a product of this system you hate so much, yet you can think clearly. As can I. This may be due to some other factor, genetics, upbringing, whatever else, but we don't account for the other 64% (USA today) of people getting into and going to college. They must be part of some education system.
Not to say there aren't flaws. Education has a nasty little habit of teaching to lowest common denominator (see CASHEE)and leaving those who are too low behind. That's for another rant later.
--
"...the same purpose it was in Prussia-as a tool for the division of children by subject, age, rankings, and grading; thus hopelessly separating the lives of the proletariat as a whole."
You're the one talking about being an individualist. Separation of students by what they're good at is what makes our society work better. I'm not terribly good at English, thus I should not be thrust into an English teaching profession, it would be inefficient and dumb. We separate people by age because of maturity and psychological development. You of all people should be able to tell the difference between Seniors and Juniors, and sophs, and freshmen, being as observant as you are.
Rankings and grades drastically dumb down and quantify the typical student, but if you have no chance to excel and do well, there is no incentive to even try in the first place.
Our society works as a meritocracy, (a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement; m-w.com), which provides ample incentive to try and think outside the box to further oneself, and to those of us who are morally obligated, others also. People trying to do their best in order to come out on top also has the convenient effect of being beneficial to the society as a whole as well. If everyone in the country (school, state, world, anything) tries to do their best (usually by thinking), everyone wins.
Most people like to think that what they do has some kind of purpose to it. What better than doing something that benefits the greater good? The school? The country? The world? What good is free-thinking or radical new ideas if they don't help anyone in the end?
I probably didn't make it seem that way, but good article, Arrash. Needless to say, I do disagree with you.