Why the world wags...

[pyat]

I need to preface my post with a note!

I realize that school systems are highly imperfect and never will be perfect for everyone. My own experience was far from ideal. They have progressively gotten better in many ways, though they sometimes take large steps back. Children in Britain, for example, are no longer indoctrinated with “the White Man’s Burden,” and children in Canada no longer learn that Riel was a traitor. Things can always get better, and always require change.

My comment is more about the philosophy or ideal of school rather than the reality. I recognize school as an unpleasant social experience for many people, including myself.

I also hope that I don't offend the person whose journal this was drawn from, by re-posting my comment here.



I’m going to pick out two quotes, here:

But in an everyday sense of the matter, you don't really need to know the chemical composition of Mercury. You don't need to know algebraic equations. You don't need to know who the governor of Michigan was in 1930...

The jobs that I want? the life skills that I need? have NOTHING to do with those, either. Why should I - why should ANY - kid have to waste time to learn skills that they'll forget upon entering adulthood?

You seem to be expressing two almost contradictory thoughts in your post. First, that schools should be institutes of learning. Second, that schools shouldn’t teach things you don’t think you’re going to need as an adult. Possibly you mean that schools should only train people according to their preference, aptitude, and eventual station?

Certainly, there is a lot of "non-essential" information presented, at least in the sense that a plumber is unlikely to ever need to recite the Gettysburg Address or know when World War II started. But, it seems to me that teaching only essentials is a lot more likely to produce a “cog,” than a process, however flawed, that tries earnestly to cram Shakespeare and Calculus and French into every brain it can reach.

The sometimes dreary rote learning of elementary school is, in a very real sense, “good for you,” in nearly the same way that gym class is good for you, even if you hate it and never intend to climb a rope or play football ever again in your life. It is, in a way, “good” for your brain in almost the same way the tiresome games of gym class were good for your body.

Every piece of information - every fact and truth - is essential to the construction of a context that allows you to understand society and the physical world. Every bit of data, every date, every fact – about how glass is made, about Bunker Hill, about quadratic equations, about the primary imports and exports of Tonga – provides you with another tiny pixel of an overall picture of the world. Aggregate knowledge of almost any kind makes it easier for you to react to new situations and comprehend new things, in the context of what has come before, and serve as an educated and informed member of society. It also equips you for self-actualization, making you better able to be the person you want to be, and do the things you like to do.

Each fact is connected to another fact, and can fire you down a line of inquiry that ends up in a place you never expected. The purpose of humanity, insofar as we have one, may be said to be a constant exploration of what is, and a constant refinement in our ability to understand it. “The purpose of man is to serve as a witness to Creation,” said a great agnostic/stoic.

There are no trivial facts, merely trivial applications of fact.

Yes, Calculus is hard. Shakespeare is hard. Chemistry is hard. French is hard.

All these things are intellectually hard in the same way that climbing a rope is physically hard and dreary. All new things are hard. Eventually, they become easy. If you run and jump and jog enough, even if it is hard at first, one day you will suddenly realize that your physical capacity has increased to the point where marvelous things can be done. Suddenly, you realize that you can climb a mountain or run a race, or even just go for a brisk hike in the woods without getting asthmatic (this last example I can personally attest to). Similarly, the mere application of mental muscle to the effort of comprehension of something which, at first blush, is dry and difficult, can lead the realization that the topic, once mastered, is not dry at all. How many high school students hate Shakespeare, or poetry, Dickens, until familiarity with the archaic language or sudden recognition of the reality below the imagery fired their imagination?

My favorite passage from T.H. White is:
“The best thing for being sad is to learn something. That is the only thing that never fails. You may grow old and trembling in your anatomies, you may lie awake at night listening to the disorder in your veins, you may miss your only love. You may see the world about you devastated by evil lunatics, or know your honour trampled in the sewers of baser minds. There is only one thing for it then - to learn. Learn why the world wags and what wags it. That is the only thing the mind can never exhaust, never alienate, never be tortured by, never fear or distrust and never dream of regretting.”

(There was more after this, but it was specific to the person, and not universal)

Comments

[oakthorne.livejournal.com]

It definitely does at that.

But as you point out, one can rarely apply the broad generalizations that are true in the widest perspective to individuals lives.

Of course, whether you live above or below the poverty line - and whether you finish schooling or not - often has far more to do with whether or not your parents did; it's more often than not an issue of class, rather than education. Certainly, there are cases where people break free to rise above those boundaries, just as there are those who plummet below such expectations, but they are - as you mention - anecdotal.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

But class and education level are inextricably linked. Those who make up the working poor for several generations have two ways out of poverty: a relationship strong enough to break their ties with their family so they can leave, and education. Those two aren't separable, either; generally the relationship is a necessary precursor to getting the education. Rising out of generational poverty is almost never done without a route that leads through formal education and out the other side - usually into a bureaucratic or professional type job, because the more unstable your background, the more likely you are to seek a stable career, and bureaucracy and professions like teaching tend to provide that.

A middle-class person who doesn't get that education might be able to keep their middle-class status with a job that doesn't require it, often in conjunction with a partner who has it and keeps the family middle-class. But two generations of that, without at least one partner who has a higher education and values it, almost always lead to the family falling into poverty.

[leonard-arlotte.livejournal.com]

All this is the main reason I am readmitting to the University to pursue an OLS degree, with an eventual aim of getting an MBA. I want mo' moneh!

[professormass.livejournal.com]

Something occurs to me (and I apologize for butting into the conversation -- as you know,velvetpage, I'm keenly interested in education):

The sweeping generalizations and the arguments against making those generalizations are missing a key point — the education system must address generalization, because it's trying to work for the mythical "average student," casting a net that catches as many kids as it reasonably can. The exceptions will always and must always be the issue. No bureaucratic system can account for the wide variety of learning styles present in the complexity of human nature.

People oakthorne and myself are exceptions. So, yes, much of pyat and velvetpage's arguments hold water, with the percentage of the population who aren't exceptions.

I think that the biggest point of difference I'd have with them is what percentage of the population represents exceptions to things like "
A middle-class person who doesn't get that education might be able to keep their middle-class status with a job that doesn't require it", where "requiring it" is a highly subjective thing, in most cases. My field, for example, routinely requires anywhere for 6-12 years of degrees, diplomas and certifications; I have none, and still operate at an executive level.

A friend of mine, a schoolteacher, told me that he thought the percentage of exception was something like 1%. I think it's more like 25%.

Modern school systems have almost always served the needs of the majority. When pyat says "it's getting better," I read, "it's serving a broader swath of the majority."

There will always be exceptions to the rule. After having done much research, I'd tend to say that public education has succeeded in catching a slightly broader swath than when I was trapped in the system. I don't think it will ever catch all the exceptions.

So, really, the question is: what to do with the exceptions? What safety net can be cast for people like oakthorne and myself? Can one be cast?

[pyat.livejournal.com]

velvetpage answered this in her journal, I understand.

So, really, the question is: what to do with the exceptions? What safety net can be cast for people like [info]oakthorne and myself? Can one be cast?

I think wider "enriched" streams can help, and maybe even more support for home school, though I find that the people most likely to want home schooling are often the people most likely to benefit from not getting it. ;)