New education system

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I have had a new idea to improve the education system. first why change the current one? The biggest problem to me is that the education system is very inneficient relative to its purpose, and my aim is to make it more efficient.

Now what is the purpose of the education system? Teach people skills that will allow them to do tasks necessary for the development of society.

Now the problem with the current system is that it teaches people things that are all likely to forget and not use during their lifes, which wastes time and effort. Now from a logical stand point humans can only remember something which is useful and which is used continually. Therefore a civil engineer should only be aware of what he needs to be an engineer, a business man only what he needs. This will make the system more efficient.

So this is my proposed solution:

  1. From the ages of 4 to 12 children should go to school everyday except for sundays ( any day, this is just to maintain tradition). There should be only one week of vacation every 3 months. and children should be teached from 8 to 5. there should be no homework apart from studying.

  2. Children should from the ages of 4 -12 only be taught maths and languages. learn simple and intermediate arithmetic and how to read and write. By the age of twelve children should have the reading and mathtematical skills of a person who has finalized undergraduate work.

3.Then from 12 -14 children should be formally introduced to the sciences without exception. Also students should be heavily introduced to philosophy and everything it encompasses. (could be reduced to one year.)

  1. At 15 the children should speacialize it any area it chooses. The schedule should be lighter, from 8 to 1. (to allow freedom of thought.)

End result people are better speakers and writers and mathtematicians in general. People will only learn that which they like which will make them more efficicent. It will also increase cooperation since most people will not know anything about another science, increasing interdependence making it indispensable for people to get “well” with each other reducing crime rate. People will learn faster due to the familiarazation principle, they will start to work earlier which will make society more productive and will reduce costs.

This is the future, by necesity human race will do it like this.

2

interesting no one wants to contradict my scheme? I would have thought that there would be some kind of resistance. :confused:

3

I’m going to make some brief points, all of which I can back up. If you ask for citations, I will research and provide them.

I have no problem with your vacation proposition, provided teacher pay is to be increased accordingly, as having 2+ months of vacation is one of the non-monetary perks of the job.

I would agree with many of the arguments made in favor of the year-round schedule including the argument that kids are less likely to forget the material, due to the shorter break, and therefore, teachers spend less time on review. There can also be remedial classes offered during the breaks so kids who are lagging have the ability to catch up.

I strongly disagree with your hours because now you are talking more hours than what is even considered a standard full-time job. For a four-year old? I equally disagree with six days a week, as most people who work full-time jobs, at least standard full-time jobs, only work five days a week. Furthermore, if were to have kids go to school six days a week, but for the current amount of hours, that would not be cost-effective. In my personal experience, schools don’t waste money. In middle school, for example, I remember my school killed the heat at 6:00p.m. on Friday and turned it back on at 10:00p.m. Sunday so it would be warm enough when the kids came back. I’m not sure if they actually benefitted from that in terms of energy usage, because it would seem that it would take as much, if not more, energy to bring the temperature back to seventy from forty, or what have you, than just to keep it at seventy, but I’m assuming they had a trial weekend and crunched the numbers behind it and blah-blah-blah. It fails to be cost-effective for other reasons, as well.

I believe that homework has been demonstrated not to effectuate better cognitive skills and retention than applied studying, however, I think it is beneficial in terms of instilling discipline.

The reason that you have x number of different courses is due to the limitation of attention spans amongst kids, or anyone else, really. You can’t slam a six year old with four hours Math and four hours language in one day, as you propose, even if you were to alternate. It becomes too monotonous.

If nothing else, kids should be introduced to the sciences, Philosophy, and Logic at a young age, when their minds are the most pliable.

Why do you need better mathematicians when you have calculators/computers? You just need logic so that you can compose the correct mathematical formula to answer your question, that’s really all higher-level mathematics is would be figuring out how to compose the right formula, not necessarily the application. You get to use Scientific Calculators on college-level exams, and must use them on some. You don’t have to be a good mathematician in terms of application, per se, just in terms of Logic. Teaching Logic from a young age to the same extent that you teach Math (durationally speaking) should accomplish those ends.

I could address the rest of that paragraph, but I abstain at this time. I disagree with all of it, but let’s just deal with what I have already disagreed with first. Simultaneously, let’s also work on what I have agreed with you on, and maybe even use what has been agreed upon to come to a compromise.

4

Under this scheme each person student should have 1 month of vacation in the entire year this will make the system more efficient since " months straight vacation only serves to let the student off the studying rhythm and people often forget alot of what they were told, making the system less efficient. but it seems you understand the concept.

Ok I understand the disagreement with the schedule, however, this is because you are referring to the conventional way to teach in which the student is seated still while a teacher is talking. However, a children watches television he is learning and plays in a playground he is learning. The goal is have the children play/learn in a controlled environment were he is acquiring the desired skills (talking, and learning words ect.) (whether the skills are valid or not is not open to discussion since this is only looking at making the current system more efficient).

Also one thing i did not discuss was transport ideally, children should live within their institution, as it they would not be need of transport which is really a complete waste of time. Although I understand why you oppose the & days schedule, this is not really negociable, at best you could argue for % and a half day schedule. According to the familirazation principle ideally the person would prefer not to go to school, and learn but this is not realistic, due to the consciousness principle, here we are not talking about what is better for the individuals immeadiate needs but the systems needs. 2 days is excessive as my system does not allow for homework to be given, homework is not efficient for many reasons.

First homework is given so that the student can practice things that he cannot in class, now since my schedule is longer “homework” would be given and done within the schedule, since until 12 students will only study two subjects this would make the system more efficient.

Second homework, is an unnecesary burden that children take home, they have to think about having fun (pleasurizing action) but also about homework, this does not let them fully enjoy their fun and makes “fun” less efficient so they need more of it to be satified, since their is no homework the free time a person has will feel more lengthy than the one people currently have, as the association principle will isolate work to “within the institution” of course this has risks since people can hate the institution but this can be greatly diminished if their reality is that “this is necessary.” This is already done so no extra effort is needed.

5

The reason that you have x number of different courses is due to the limitation of attention spans amongst kids, or anyone else, really. You can’t slam a six year old with four hours Math and four hours language in one day, as you propose, even if you were to alternate. It becomes too monotonous.

[quote]
Then you add the concept of games, a person can learn maths only by playing with shapes learn english by tallking as I already explained, ofcourse their has to be some kind of system but again the only barrier is the money involved in better teachers (more teachers aswell) and better equipment but this is not a problem here since this is what ideally should happen to make the system more efficient.

6

[quote=“PavlovianModel146”]
If nothing else, kids should be introduced to the sciences, Philosophy, and Logic at a young age, when their minds are the most pliable.

“philosophy” is the science of thinking which really encompasses every other science, however, philosophy destroys the reality of a person and debases the notion of truth which is almost fatal to this form of society, the repercussions of intilling such thought into underveloped minds could have consequences which well could not be very pleasant, since the learing process of a human eing is based on probaility al that might happen will happen. Some might commit suicide, depression rate will grow, and so on this is because learing cannot happen void of "rat " conditioning this means
students are rewarded for being right and punished for being wrong, this creates the rat symdrome (as I call it) where a person feels good when he acheives the correct answer. Massive depression is likely if philosophy is taken seriously by society therefore, it is predicted that it will not, in a capitalist society at least. This is why I propose only to introduce it, so that there is an wasreness of it, so just in case their are some people like us, that they find a way to grow their knowledge.

7

I have to disagree with you.

In order to understand the principles of education, you have to know what the mind is suppose to be doing. What can be predicated of a thing is determined by that things definition, including the human mind.

Your approach is typical of those who have no idea of what a thing is or is for.

8

Ofcourse I agree, since logically calculators will stopped being used the day they humans forget how to make them, (according to the familiarization principle.) and certainly some 2+2=4 should be taught, although I agree in the future it is likely that only 2+2= will be told, it is predicted at least like that by the principle of familiazation which is the counter part of the principle of motivation. In other words their is a universal motivation to do something but their is a universal motivation to “save” energy.

Thanks for your contribuition.

9

You mean you disagree with everything? what exactly you disagree with is unclear to me. ( and yes my principles and theory is very patchy but they have served me well to this time.)

10

Start with a definition.

Every environmental acquisition of a living organism must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired, for a product that maintains and promotes its life.

The mind of man is one of a system of seven. It must learn each of them, and it must learn the commensurate languages of each of them.

This means a whole new psychological profile for not only education, but society in general.

Or in the words of a wise saying, Know Thyself.

Or if you want what is mystical to the common man, these are the seven plagues of mankind. These are what he is really at war with. These are what judgment is to conquer, first and foremost.

11

Learning is defined as: The process of acquiring modifications in existing knowledge, skills, habits, or tendencies through experience, practice, or exercise2.

Through experience, practice or exersice, all of which are dependant on perception since none can take place without it. The act to learn depends on a perception and learning is done by associating those perceptions. agree?

12

And are you so bereft of your wits not to see the self-referential fallacy here?

13

At birth their is existing “knowledge”(although i agree is not a good word for it, but it is the definition I found most pleasing), which could also be referred to as instincts. For example crying, breathing and so on… other than that what you mean is not clear to me I have a thousand ideas of what you might be seeing but I would not like to guess.

14

Try this.

The elements cannot be defined, they can be described, the description is a map that one uses to acquire something from which to make an abstraction in order to participate in the naming convention.

A definition is the preservation of the social convention which equates the name of a thing to the names of that things various materials and the forms of those materials.

Now, See if you can provide a definition.

15

uff… this is a challenge I need to meditate thoroughly, (by the way it is not my definition but one i used from a phichology book, you would be surprised how bad we are at defining our own learning).

16

Like I said, what you have been taught, what is taught, is in need of serious change.

Spend a lot of time listening to Plato. If you approach him as trying to get you to think, instead of trying to repeat passages, you got the game.

Pay attention when Socrates ask “Is it a thing?” this is because only things can be defined.

17

Words are defined NOT “things”.

Every word represents a concept.
A definition is merely an attempt at explaining what concept a word or phrase is to be associated with in a dialog.

18

Sounds a bit like the Japanese system - except for the philosophy. They aren’t doing too well.

By 15 having been trained not to be free for all those formative years, where do they get the wherewithal to suddenly have freedom of thought?

19

A word explains a word? So, language is self-referential? And who would call themselves a philosopher with that statement?

What does “being divorced from reality” mean?

I suppose the recent monetary crisis has taught you nothing about “con cepts”

20

Have you never seen a dictionary, 8659? You’ve never seen instances of words being used to explain the meaning of other words? Dictionaries are pretty common.