Why do we care so much about education? Why have school sys?

I was contemplating this the other day. Have you ever seen that show “do you want to be smarter than a 5th grader?” In this show they pit adults against 11 year old kids on questions ranging from science to english. In most of the shows the students know the answer and the adults do not.

So what is the purpose of the mass education system? And more importantly, why do we teach individuals things like when to use the Pythagorean theorem, protons and electrons, cell structure of plants, the importance of chief joseph, the capital of all 50 states, etc, etc. These are common in most of our school curriculum.

However, very few people remember these things for good reason - they never use it. Why don’t we teach things for the majority like how to cook, how to be organized, how to fix a car, how to do general plumbing, teach them about saving/invest, how to dress, how to buy a car or house, etc. - things that are very useful and most of us will learn some time or another. Why do we teach children from the ages of say 11 and so forth knowledge and information that most of them will never ever use. Why not teach them things they will use?

My reasoning is that to remain a powerhouse country we must develop technology before other countries. Our economy and military strength depend on new technology. By teaching everyone, a little of every topic we can select the few geniuses from the general public and allow them to better our economy. But this theory is highly flawed. First, we let these kids do whatever they want. Second, we also do not foster growth by placing and keeping these individuals in slow public education. So I doubt that’s the reason.

So again what is the purpose of mass education on topics 99% of students will never use? Why make over 95% of our population learn something that is totally unnecessary?

Imagine a world where you only know what can be applied to everyday life… Pursuit of knowledge is good.

I agree that they should have more practical classes…

And I also agree that the educational system needs some revamping.

I talked a little bit about it here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=165711

I don’t understand. All of it is in pursuit of knowledge?

Geez, I think 11-year-olds do learn things in school that they’ll need in life. I have one, and I find that he’s developing, through his education, an understanding of the vastness of the world around him and how things about it fundamentally work. He’s learning to tackle mathematical equations so that he can improve his reasoning and critical thinking skills. I always say, if you can’t solve for ‘x’ in this world, you’re eventually gonna rue the day, lol. He’s learning how to express himself more clearly by enlarging his vocabulary and increasing his ability to comprehend written material so that he can make wiser, more informed decisions later in his life. He’s learning instrumental music and basketball technique so that he can increase his emotional experience of the arts and have the thrill of competing in the unique mind-body way that you do in sports.

Maybe from watching the TV show, you’re confusing education with being able to retain a particular item in memory. That’s not what it’s about. Sure, they test kids in school to see if they’re learning specific things at specific times, but that’s because it’s necessary as a way of measuring. Any test at any point in time doesn’t measure the long-term developmental benefit that kids get from going through the formalized educational process of schooling. It’s about learning how to think, how to reason, how to create, how to build a foundation so that you can keep learning throughout life, and how to interact successfully with the world around you.

I definitely agree that the educational system (and that includes both public and private, although my emphasis is always on improving the public) should be flexible enough to lead students, particularly in high school, into the areas where they might best fit. Some should go toward the vocational, some more toward academic or the arts. Mine is going into a charter school next year, because it offers him a curriculum that suits his interests and continues to challenge him.

That is not true, it is inaccurate to insinuate that over 95% of the population have graduated high school, the number is more in the mid-80’s.

Also, I think saying 99% of the topics the students never use is a little bit high. Think about it this way, imagine that you could (by will) delete 99% of everything you have ever learned in the school system; I believe that you would inevitably delete some knowledge that you use on a daily basis.

I live in Ohio, so it does me no good whatsoever to know that Honolulu is the capital of Hawaii, so you ask why did I have to learn this?

Memorization, simple. They have us spend some of our younger years in the school system memorizing facts of this nature so that we can improve both our brain’s capacity and retention. Without the capacity and ability to retain knowledge that we need to have to survive, we would be nothing more that a bunch of driveling idiots.

In short, the goal of such excursions is not to memorize the capitals of each of the fifty states for long-term retention, but simply to instill within each of us the ability to retain knowledge.

In terms of specific mathematical or scientific knowledge, there are things that we are required to learn because they serve to uncover an individual’s specific interests. By uncovering such interests it gives people the ability to pursue careers in whatever field interests them. You brought up the cell structure of plants as an example, imagine we did not learn that in the education system. What would happen is that all of the kids that found their interest in plants that way and grew up and became plant biologists (which is a very important profession because these are the people that sometimes use plants for research and development to determine what can be used in prescriptions to cure or suppress illnesses) well, if they hadn’t had that stepping stone in high school, maybe they would not have done that and we would still be suffering from polio on a regular basis!

Your argument that someone should already know what they do or do not want to do/learn is somewhat valid, but probably more on a personal level. I think for a person to completely dismiss something as a thing they do not want to do and be correct in doing so it at least requires that they get a small sample of what it is all about and that is what the education system provides.

Because television and the internet are not boring enough.

Yes. If people only knew enough to get a good job, we wouldn’t have the internet or computers. Extra knowledge is meant to stimulate one’s inquisitive ability

Yes, but why learn upper level mathematics like sin, cosine, integration, derivatives, etc. If someone wants to pursue that path fine but 99% of people won’t find this useful. One can’t reason that to teach him this upper level math is required to improve reasoning and critical thinking. There are tons of things that could do this as well. For example, understanding how an automobile runs. And I’m certain a lot more people would find this useful then trying to calculate the rate of acceleration of a marble falling off a table.

reading, writing, basic math, and gymnastics are necessary. they are fundamental to how we live our life. it isn’t about vocation that i’m interested in but what would do the most good for the most people. Why can’t they teach us about money? No where in school do they teach one of the most vital aspects such as savings and credits.

Memorizing useless facts like city capitals is pointless. Whether you agree on this particular example is moot. there are numerous other examples like memorizing the periodic table of elements. Why not have them memorize something more useful like the bill of rights?

Whether or not they go do something vocational, academic, artistic, become noble prize physicist does not matter. We are learning a lot of useless unnecessary stuff. When something more applicable could be learned. If schools want to teach creative writing or art that is also okay as that improves an individuals way of life. These other topics do not. And most students are forced to learn this stuff just because it is precedent.

Now, there is a reason why we are taught this stuff. Is the government trying to control the masses? What is the reasoning requiring students to take math until a senior in college? We give them the fundamentals and if they want to pursue it more fine but 99% of people will never find that stuff useful so why force it down their throat?

I’m not saying school is ONLY to get a job. I’m saying why are we teaching them useless stuff. Things that 99% will never find applicable. I’m not saying lowering the hours to go to school. We can give a student a look at a topic and give him a well rounded education but why teach him things in upper level math class when a class in reasoning, or another class in public speaking, or the environment would be more useful?

Why is our system based around this nonsense? We put kids through several years and when they leave sure they have SOME useful information but much that they’ll forget and many more that they won’t need. By teaching him one thing we take away his opportunity to learn something else. Are you saying everyone should learn precalculus over something that would be more useful to many more people (like understanding how to fix a car to traveling).

This point further backs up my claim. Why fail a kid cause he couldn’t pass something he’ll never need like calculus . Why isn’t he motivated? Cause he knows it’s useless and for almost all the population it is.

By having him take this time to study the periodic table of elements to the capital of hawaii we take away something he should actually memorize like his right, as in the Bill of Rights. Why memorize useless knowledge when we can memorize things that is applicable to the whole population? You can have students memorize any number of topics but why do we focus on the trivial things?

Okay, this is a valid point. But let’s say a class of 1000 students is a representation of the entire population of the United States of America. We should have all the students learn the cell structure of a plant because of 1 student. 1 student out of 1000 will find this particular point useful. Why not teach them about gardening? Or something that more students would need? Maybe we should teach basic understanding of plant structure. But by teaching that we have them missing out on something else. What if that student wanted to become an engineer? There are certainly more engineers in this country than people who need to learn the cell structure of a plant. Why not cater to them? Because we did not teach everyone about engineering we are taking away from these students their stepping stone to make a airplane, car, even medical equipment that save lives that many use on a regular basis! Engineering is more useful to many more people and more applicable than cell structure of plants.

[/quote]

[/quote]
Sure a sample is very reasonable. But why do we force them upper level requirements? I never stated that fundamental principles or sampling of several topics is incorrect. it’s useful and it’s useful to almost everyone. But in actuality we do not give students a small sample at all. We force them in upper level classes where they focus on the same topic but this time irrelevant material where they could be learning about other pursuits that they may follow.

Anyway, we could argue all day what is more applicable and more reasonable to teach in school. However, my point is why have we built a system focused on irrelevant subjects? What are the philosophical reasoning behind it? Is someone trying to control the masses? What is the logical reasoning for government to have this standard of irrelevance?

Loren: “This point further backs up my claim. Why fail a kid cause he couldn’t pass something he’ll never need like calculus . Why isn’t he motivated? Cause he knows it’s useless and for almost all the population it is.”

I never took Calculus. It was not required of me. I graduated with a cumulative 3.6 GPA.

Loren: “By having him take this time to study the periodic table of elements to the capital of hawaii we take away something he should actually memorize like his right, as in the Bill of Rights. Why memorize useless knowledge when we can memorize things that is applicable to the whole population? You can have students memorize any number of topics but why do we focus on the trivial things?”

I can’t speak for you, but I learned capitals in Third-Grade geography, and had a refresher in Ninth-Grade world geography, I doubt if I was capable of memorizing the Bill of Rights in third grade. That is exactly the point, though, you use trivial things and have little contests like Geography Bees (Again, referencing third grade) to build up your capacity for retention. Besides, if you need to look over the Bill of Rights go to http://www.supremecourt.gov, or http://www.libraryofcongress.gov, there’s not really a whole lot of need to memorize the thing when you can pull it up whenever you want. Which I believe they teach you in Computer class, that’s on the educational system’s curriculum, right?

Loren: “Okay, this is a valid point. But let’s say a class of 1000 students is a representation of the entire population of the United States of America. We should have all the students learn the cell structure of a plant because of 1 student. 1 student out of 1000 will find this particular point useful. Why not teach them about gardening? Or something that more students would need? Maybe we should teach basic understanding of plant structure. But by teaching that we have them missing out on something else. What if that student wanted to become an engineer? There are certainly more engineers in this country than people who need to learn the cell structure of a plant. Why not cater to them? Because we did not teach everyone about engineering we are taking away from these students their stepping stone to make a airplane, car, even medical equipment that save lives that many use on a regular basis! Engineering is more useful to many more people and more applicable than cell structure of plants.”

Let’s say we have a class of 1,000 students which is a representation of the entire population of the United States of America. Let’s say zero of those students learn how to go about finding cures for diseases when they are adults; there will not be a population of the United States of America for very long.

Let’s go back to Calculus, engineers need to know calculus as well as other complex mathematics, I’m pretty sure. Do you remember your earlier statement about useless old Calculus? It’s quoted above for posterity.

Loren: "Sure a sample is very reasonable. But why do we force them upper level requirements? I never stated that fundamental principles or sampling of several topics is incorrect. it’s useful and it’s useful to almost everyone. But in actuality we do not give students a small sample at all. We force them in upper level classes where they focus on the same topic but this time irrelevant material where they could be learning about other pursuits that they may follow.

Anyway, we could argue all day what is more applicable and more reasonable to teach in school. However, my point is why have we built a system focused on irrelevant subjects? What are the philosophical reasoning behind it? Is someone trying to control the masses? What is the logical reasoning for government to have this standard of irrelevance?"

What upper-level requirements are these people being forced into? Did you go to a private school? My highest math was Algebra II, Science was my weakest subject, I took Cumulative Sciences 9 and 10 and then I took Environmental Science, which is pretty much the science class that all of us people retarded in Science took for the easy science credit. In fact, I could have graduated at my one high school without the additional science class, but I switched schools Senior year. There was also a different Math class I could have taken lower than Algebra II for the credit, but I was pretty good in Algebra, so I figured what the hell.

If you require evidence of those statements, PM me your address or fax number and I will sent you a copy of my High School Transcript, public school, mind you.

Define, “Irrelevant subjects.” How can I take you at face value for what an irrelevant subject is when you tell me Calculus is an upper-level Math course that we should not be forced (which I don’t believe we are) to take, but then say we should cater to engineers who need Calculus?

And, yes, the masses are being controlled to an extent. They are making sure that the masses get an idea of what they want to do with their lives so that there will be enough people in all of the necessary professions. How many computer classes where there in 1980? Answer: A hell of a lot less. Why? Answer: Because computer science and information technology were not as big of professions as they are now, now you have to be able to operate a computer to work almost anywhere which is why kids are getting fed the basics in Elementary school for the most part. The curriculum and what we learn is based on fulfilling the future needs of society, which makes sense, because I am sure that people would like to have knowledge that nets them a job.

Calculus > Leibniz/philosopher>ILP.

This logic is backwards. You can look up ANYTHING on the internet. So we should learn nothing? So if we had to memorize either city capital or OUR RIGHTS as a citizen - one should memorize city capitals?

Yes calculus is useless for the general public. I’m not talking about the futility of calculus. I’m talking about the futility of teaching calculus to the general public. The general public does not need to know calculus or cell wall of plants. Only very specialized individuals need to know either.

You stated that we find cures as adults. Not as High school students. High school students aren’t finding cures for diseases. It’s on the college and beyond level. To figure out whether that individual wants to learn more biology or calculus for engineering all they need is cursory knowledge on the subject. Once they figure that out they can specialize in college. Not general education what it’s useless for most of the general public.

They are forced into several levels. For example we’ll take your experience. Your highest level of math was Algebra 2. What real world applications are you using what you learned here? Have you ever had to use quadratic equations and factoring polynomials in your life other than for a class? I’ll make an assumption - no? So it was a pointless class.

Foreign language is required as well. No one needs to learn how to speak Mandarin in school. But speaking mandarin is still more applicable than Algebra 2. So I would favor learning a language over upper level math. Even still, it isn’t necessary.

?

Calculus is just an example. We can use any example for upper level courses that we are forced to take - we can just replace calculus for algebra 2, set theory, trigonometry, geometrical proofs, etc. All irrelevant subjects. So if you did not take calculus you probably were forced to take one of these.

They aren’t helping individuals get a real idea what they want to do with their lives. There are a lot of other topics they could be teaching that would give individuals a better sense at what they want to do. For example, after taking Algebra 1 - were you pretty certain you were not going to pursue a future career in mathematics? So why be forced to continue along this path?

[/quote]
Computer classes aren’t irrelevant courses. Perhaps you are confused. Irrelevant subjects are any subject that is not applicable to the majority of the students taking it. Computers are very applicable in LIFE to almost every individual. So it’s a relevant course. An irrelevant course would be upper level stuff like learning java programming. But java programming is NOT required because it is NOT useful to 99% of the population to learn java. And same with algebra 2.

lol. do you read and post on this philosophy forum or a calculus forum?

Philosophy: 1 Calculus: 0

Loren: "This logic is backwards. You can look up ANYTHING on the internet. So we should learn nothing? So if we had to memorize either city capital or OUR RIGHTS as a citizen - one should memorize city capitals? "

You miss the entire point. The object behind the memorization of states and their capitals is to prepare the brain for a greater type of learning. It is a exercise for the brain to expand the power of retention. The Bill of Rights is not only a long document (by a third grader’s standards) but is filled with words that a third-grader cannot be expected to understand at that level. I think that memorizing the Bill of Rights would be a pretty good exercise, as well, just for someone that is a little older.

Learn nothing? I do not understand where you think that I made the implication that we should learn nothing. You have to have a general concept of the history of this country, know what The Bill of Rights is, and have some general concept of its usefulness and applicability to the individual to even know what it is you are looking for. That would be an example of the basic stuff that you think schools should teach. You teach someone what the Bill of Rights is and why it exists, if anyone needs to quote it verbatim, they know where to look.

Loren: "Yes calculus is useless for the general public. I’m not talking about the futility of calculus. I’m talking about the futility of teaching calculus to the general public. The general public does not need to know calculus or cell wall of plants. Only very specialized individuals need to know either. "

Again, there is a lot more to Calculus than what is taught at the High School level, otherwise, it would not be existent at the college level. The point is that it gives you a taste of what Calculus is, the basics of Calculus, if you will. Once again, you have failed to show me any circumstance where Calculus is needed to graduate from a public school, before I continue in this specific vein (Calculus) I will require such proof.

Loren: “You stated that we find cures as adults. Not as High school students. High school students aren’t finding cures for diseases. It’s on the college and beyond level. To figure out whether that individual wants to learn more biology or calculus for engineering all they need is cursory knowledge on the subject. Once they figure that out they can specialize in college. Not general education what it’s useless for most of the general public.”

High school students may not be finding cures (except for prodigies) but it is high school where they learn the basics about the usefulness of plants for curative purposes and get the idea that they wish to pursue using plants to find cures.

Cursory knowledge? What is a High School class if not a class on cursory knowledge?

Did you take Composition in High School? Most assuredly, are you a professional author/teacher/professor based on your having taken this class in High School, no. Apparently, you only picked up cursory knowledge.

Loren: "They are forced into several levels. For example we’ll take your experience. Your highest level of math was Algebra 2. What real world applications are you using what you learned here? Have you ever had to use quadratic equations and factoring polynomials in your life other than for a class? I’ll make an assumption - no? So it was a pointless class.

Foreign language is required as well. No one needs to learn how to speak Mandarin in school. But speaking mandarin is still more applicable than Algebra 2. So I would favor learning a language over upper level math. Even still, it isn’t necessary. "

Your assumption is wrong, I use Algebra all of the time, anytime I need to determine an unknown number or value I break out some sort of Algebraic equation. Obviously, I have not used every single aspect of Algebra taught to me in High School, but I have used many of them and am better for having taken the course.

Foreign language may not be necessary, but I think that learning a foreign language is certainly beneficial. It promotes open-mindedness and a knowledge of cultures other than your own. You know the redneck that sits in his sofa on the front lawn and hollers, “WHOOOO-HOOOO, Ahhhh-Muuuurrrr-Ehhhhhh-Kaaaaaa,” every time George W. Bush comes on his TV? That guy probably is not aware of other cultures, and as such, is incapable of considering the possibility that Americans are not right in all that they do by merit of being Americans.

Loren: “Calculus is just an example. We can use any example for upper level courses that we are forced to take - we can just replace calculus for algebra 2, set theory, trigonometry, geometrical proofs, etc. All irrelevant subjects. So if you did not take calculus you probably were forced to take one of these.”

That’s an easy statement for you to make now that I have stated that I took Algebra II already! Although, I was not forced into taking Algebra II, or any of the others. In fact, without Algebra II, I could not have taken Trigonometry or Calculus had I wanted to. In place of Algebra II, by the way, I could have taken Business Math, which is just a slightly higher level of basic math.

Loren: "They aren’t helping individuals get a real idea what they want to do with their lives. There are a lot of other topics they could be teaching that would give individuals a better sense at what they want to do. For example, after taking Algebra 1 - were you pretty certain you were not going to pursue a future career in mathematics? So why be forced to continue along this path? "

Again, I was not forced to continue along this path. I chose to take Algebra II. That fact notwithstanding, another benefit of taking higher level mathmatics is to expand your mind and challenge yourself. For the record, my degree is in Business Administration-Economics, so I would say that I pursued a career path where algebra is necessary.

Loren: “Computer classes aren’t irrelevant courses. Perhaps you are confused. Irrelevant subjects are any subject that is not applicable to the majority of the students taking it. Computers are very applicable in LIFE to almost every individual. So it’s a relevant course. An irrelevant course would be upper level stuff like learning java programming. But java programming is NOT required because it is NOT useful to 99% of the population to learn java. And same with algebra 2.”

To avoid further confusion, please read my statements more than once, if you must. I never said directly, nor did I in any way insinuate that computer classes are irrelevant courses. In fact, up top you even suggested that I would have us learn nothing except for how to navgate the Internet. I either believe that computer classes accomplish everything or nothing in your eyes, so you should at least pick one belief for the purpose of this discussion. What I said was, computer science and information technology were not as advanced in the 1980’s as they are today, as a result, there were less computer classes in the 1980’s. Today there are many computer classes because computers are relevant in life.

And if you are basing your course selection on classes that are, “Useful to 99% of the population,” which I take to mean directly relevant to 99% of us as adults, then we can eliminate almost every class we take post grade 4, graduate, “High School,” at the age of 9, and be a nation full of driveling idiots to an even greater extent than we currently are.

Or, maybe you can draw out these classes that are relevant to 99% of us. For instance, maybe we should take an entire semester in fifth grade and just have one big class where we break down the concept of basic subtraction, we’ll just spend six months doing nothing but subtraction. Multiplication is out of the question, though, I don’t believe that 99% of Americans know how to multiply, so we will have to remove that from the curriculum.

I passed Calculus I in 1981. That’s the last time that I needed to use it. It was also the first time that I ever heard of Leibniz. Let’s make a list of great philosophers who were also mathematicians.

Leibniz
Descartes
Pythagoras
Pascal

Calculus teach’s the necessary attention to detail, and sustained intellectuality needed to adequately peruse a philosophical text. (As Pavlovianmodel stated, it’s required of the general public). Nietzsche was infamously deficient in math and science. There may be other methods (than calculus) to teach the rigors that are required to sufficiently grasp and digest philosophy, but this is how i encountered it. Calculus opened up my mind. I’ve never understood why philosopher’s are not also mathematicians anymore. Science has entirely robbed philosophy of math.

Before i answer directly, i would like to inform you on the governments role in deciding what the masses are subjected to, including public curriculum.

Since freuds conclusion that man is inherently violent and irrational, the government took a modified approach in its efforts to make its citizens happy. It reasoned that as a crowd, people are irrational, and in many circumstances cannot be trusted. They actually use this line of reasoning, even though it blatantly undermines democracy.

The government would be concerned if the population might vote for the wrong candidate, someone who they deemed dangerous and unfit. They would worry about general morale. Governments often leave things out of the public eye that might otherwise cause discontent, no citations needed. A very pertinent and current example of this happening is during war time. During a war, the government controls the media to the best of its abilities. They would be worried that half way through the war, they could suffer a great loss, and because of that people could become irrational and force and end to the war. They reason that they could wind up losing the war because of that. They actually go even further, they manipulate the truth in order to not just prevent media that’s damaging to the war effort, but to present media that’s helpful to the war effort.

This can be done in manipulating casualties and losses, by manipulating the reasons for war, and they might even go so far as to use “propaganda” or “public relations” in such a manipulative way that would begin a war which the government thought essential, but the people did not. It’s them reasoning they know better than us plain and simple. It’s called “the engineering of consent”. The government is the farmer, and we are the stubborn mules that it has to coordinate. It chooses not to speak with us but rather lie and manipulate us. I said this before, it’s easier to call someone stupid than to educate them.

The government has expanded their use of social control to include our every day lives. The government needs many workers in order to have a good economy. It wants more poor people than rich people, that’s a given. It wants us to be good consumers, but their reasons for that are somewhat clouded.

Commercials no longer advertise things for their practicality, because hardly anything we value is practical, as it has become. The industrial sector realized that it could not keep production and profit up if they only sold people things they need, because eventually they would sell everyone one of everything. They needed some way to sell people things they don’t need, and psycho-analysis came to the rescue. They figured out that merely by associating a product with an internal drive or desire, they could make us want that product by association. And so hot women selling car insurance was born. Product placement was born. A whole new market was open, it was good times. A good example of how far they were willing to go comes to mind. When women smoking used to have a social stigma (it was not lady like or whatever) the tobacco companies were concerned that they could be making a whole lot more money if they had as much women smokers as men. So they rounded up a bunch of actors, told them to be feminists, and to push for an end to the tyrannical inequality by smoking their torches of freedom. The social movement that they had triggered was incredible. Women began smoking in the movies along with the men. Not smoking because they were equal, but smoking so you would associate smoking with movie glamour, and therefore want to smoke yourself, or think it “keen”

I’m not really sure why the government wants us to be so hopelessly addicted to consumer goods. Maybe they think consumer goods are our rewards, and make us happy in life. Really they use consumer goods and social control like product placement to make us want what they’re selling, in order to force us to work. A rudimentary metaphor for this would be to inject someone with a fluid that makes you intensely desire to touch something red, and then making you run in a hamster wheel. Their way of controlling us is by making us want what they’re serving. The other obvious but more cynical reason why the government wants us to be good consumers is because the leadership is corrupted by the coorporations and aids consummerism to line their own pockets. perhaps they reason that strong coorporations make america strong (i’m talking about america but it’s not limited there, propaganda is a general tool of all governments). but hey, that only means the difference between innocent ignorance or corruption. both are unconstitutional.

Propaganda was really modernized in war time. When america was sending its troops to some eastern european country they wanted to be recived with high morale, so they used propaganda to make the population support their troops as they entered the city. Propaganda was not always a bad word, and for that, they changed it.

They now refer to it as “public relations”.

People are not seen as a capable individual, they are seen as a dangerous irrational person that needs to be controlled. By their standards they are humanitarians for putting otherwise useless cattle to work and making us happy with a shower of tinsel.

Now that i got that out, why don’t we learn useful stuff in school? why not learn to do taxes properly or to avoid bad credit? Why not teach people plumbing?

Well for starters you would put plumbers out of work. Teaching people to manage their money would only mean there is more rich people and therefore less workers. Debt is the best way to enslave someone. the government likes it’s citizens in debt. It likes their minds malleable, so that it can dictate their opinions. The government wants their citizens unhealthy and dependant on modern medicine, which certain people make a killing off of.

The government even wants you addicted to drugs. Drug addiction is like psycho-analysis’s cousin on steroids; the ultimate dependence… The war on drugs is a joke.

The way they see it, they have a job to do, which is run a successful country. And you and your stupidity only slows them down, so sit down and shut up, and swallow whatever shit flies down from the table top.

Most teachers talk about jack shit all day. My grade 11 chem teacher would literally spend every class talking about her personal life (in a exhibitionist way) and then spend the last 5 minutes rushing through something meager and giving us homework. most people failed that class with honors. Why is it school is so long? why do we go there for 12 years and learn what amounts to lliteracy, a vocabulary, and arithmetic?

Every morning you are blasted by the PA system. A social event. You are trained to obey the school bell. You do repetitive and meanial mental tasks. You are learned social skills, and how to work in a social environment. They no longer grade you based on academic performance, but rather effort and if you have caused disruptions or not. You are trained to be a good robot, a good social worker. Most of you wont need to know the pythagorean theorum, or trigonometry. I once asked my teacher what the hell math was good for in my future life, i said most jobs don’t involve math whatsoever. He said if you’re a fireman, you’ll need to be able to read an address. To this day i don’t know what the fuck that has to do with matricies.

If you make it to university, you suddenly realize that everything you learned in science is useless, and that your precious experience in completing vast amounts of repetitive and frankly mind numbing tasks no longer works, you have to read and digest large amounts of information. But that isn’t an issue as most people don;t go to university, most jobs don’t require it.

You are a worker. And you need to be babysat from 8 am to 4 pm so that your parents can go to work. you need to waste years of your life learning nothing because you are not allowed to learn useful stuff, you would hurt your country with it, and because you are too young to enter the work force.

This rant is dedicated in loving memory of Edward Bernays…

And I guess you are missing my point. Why are we making them memorize city capitals? Why not just memorize 50 digits of the number pi while you are it? Would you agree that it would be irrelevant to have students memorize 50 digits of pi?

You state it is to prepare the brain for greater type of learning. So we prepare it by learning meaningless information? First of all you are not giving children the intelligence that they deserve. They are extremely smart. There are tons of schools that teach and have students memorize the bill of rights.

Example:

This is for third grade: totally3rdgrade.com/bill_of_rights.html

This is something that is taught and something meaningful and like you said it can “prepare the brain.”

I said upper level math is required to graduate and sometimes that includes calculus. The rule is that upper level math courses are required in High School. There is no way around it.

Taken from Kentucky (but EVERY state has very similar requirements)

“What mathematics courses are required for the graduating class of 2012? Answer: Students are required to have three credits in mathematics and to take mathematics every
year.”

They are required EVERY year to take a math course and MUST pass three of them.

“Question: If students receive credit for Algebra I or Geometry in middle school, do they still need to
take mathematics every year in high school?
Answer: 704 KAR 3:305 states that students must take mathematics every year of high school. That is
different than a requirement that students receive four years of high school math credit. If a student is
enrolled in a high school for any given year, he/she must take mathematics that year.”

That means I must take 4 years of mathematics. A student enters the high school already taken Geometry. So freshman year student takes Algebra 1. Sophomore year: Algebra II. Junior Year: Pre-calculus Senior year: Calculus.

In this instance Calculus is REQUIRED to be taken. A lot of students are forced to take Calculus their junior year as well. 4 years are to be taken NO MATTER what level you came in with. I personally was required to take calculus and there are millions of other students required to take it as well.

Want to read up more on this check this link: kentuckymathematics.org/docs … QAMay1.pdf

It goes in depth into topics not useful for the general public.

I am not arguing whether or not it is for a profession. It does not matter if we learn it for a profession or not. My whole argument is that we are learning things that are not useful in our lives. I use composition ALL the time. EVERYONE does. So it is required. Everyone does NOT use Algebra 2.

When have you ever had to use Algebra 2 in your daily life? You said many, so name a few. 99% of people do NOT use Algebra 2 in their daily lives so why teach this course that 99% of people need. It’s like saying you have all these children in africa who are starving to death. You have 1million dollars to spend. You spend it all on soccer balls to give to the people of Africa. Sure some of those kids could use a soccer ball (the 1%). But the majority (the 99%) do not NEED the soccer balls they need food. You are saying in your statements you’d give them soccer balls something most of them do not need instead of something almost all of them need - food. Why are you giving them things they don’t need like soccer balls? Why are you making them go hungry?

Of course it’s beneficial - I never said it wasn’t. But most people will never need it in their lives.

Well, I’m just stating truth. If you’ve already completed lower level math courses you are required to take upper level math.

Again I have not seen where you have stated the many times you had to use Algebra 2 in your daily life…

How is this point even relevant point in our discussion? What does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

What is the MOST beneficial for the most individuals? Time is a precious commodity. There are opportunity costs when one selects one subject over another. There is no reason we should force them to learn something that isn’t useful. You keep arguing things like this subject is “expanding our mind” or “challenging” us. If there are two courses to take.

Course 1: is not useful, has no meaning, and we’ll never use it again,
Course 2: is useful, has much meaning, and we will definitely need to know this stuff later in life.

Both of these courses “expand our mind” and “challenge” us. What course should we force students to take? I don’t understand why you are forcing them to take course 1 over course 2.

I posted about this before and I usually get harsh reactions for it but I compare this to Aristotle’s belief that it is a necessity to have slaves.

Aristotle “views slaves as the means by which the master secures his livelihood. He defends slavery by noting that nature generally consists of ruling and ruled elements: some people are slaves by nature, while others are masters by nature. Though being suited to mastery or slavery is generally inherited, slavery is just only when the rule of master over slave is beneficial for both parties.”

I think of corporate america. The head honcho works very few hours and benefits the most. While the staff do almost all of the work and benefits the least in the corporation. However, there is mutual benefit as the staff earn a salary for their time.

Yep. Economic slavery. Practically indentured servants.

Almost all of the scientific research on a drug treatment is done by the pharmaceutical company. They also only publish the positive reports and skew the data so it seems the drugs are more helpful than they are. For instance depression medications are very profitable drugs. Zoloft had their famous commercial regarding chemical imbalance - which has not been proven. And surprisingly many of the most popular depression medications are actually scientifically no better than a sugar pill.

It’s not only these large corruptions fucking us over but each and every one of us who plays into the need for materialism. And I noticed there is a very common pattern in which they all do - they corrupt the head honcho (whether it be a top government official or a head of a corporation) and the that head will let an individual rape his people.

Something small like giving a small gift to a school teacher so they use your books to pharmaceutical companies giving many doctors “gifts.” Objectivity aside,I find practices like this absolutely despicable. This is the worst thing a person could do - become a doctor to help people and then give in to greed and even to the point of injuring and causing irreparable damage for profit. We very are easily corruptible. And I find it really sad that only a few people can stand up for their beliefs. Just look in my thread where I asked individuals if they would solely work for money. Many said they would do unethical things for the money and things they did not believe in, like they would pollute the waters if it meant they’d make 30k/year. And they would just backward rationalize. Some even said they could give that money to another cause like feeding the homeless. Sure you would. Give me a break. People are really this selfish and greedy? Yep.

LOL. It’s absolutely ridiculous. They teach us how to be a worker all throughout schooling. Never to start a company or to do something else. It’s all about the “american dream.” And they make a huge deal on individuals that have made it. But very few actually do. Kind of like gambling where they make a huge deal on the person who wins a million dollars but in reality it’s pointless to gamble and is a waste of money. Just look how extravagant their hotels are - they don’t do that by losing money.

For example, look how expensive private college is. For one, they are keeping the status quo by keeping the poor out. And there is absolutely no reason to charge someone 40k/year to go to class. $160k for each individual for 4 years? This is ludicrous. A regular teacher only makes 40k. I could get a 1 on 1 for that. Or 4 or 5 students could have 1 noble prize laureate to teach them. Instead we have 1 professor and 100 students in a lecture hall. Actually it’s more like 1-2 TAs (who teach for free) teaching 100 students. Universities are for profit organizations. Many of them like law school is just a scam. There are way more law students than positions. And they keep adding more and more schools. Many of those individuals are not going to be able to get a job with that degree. Especially those who go to an expensive private law school where one takes on the WHOLE load of debt (no real subsidization). And governments fully protect universities in this fraud. You’re in 200k in debt for school? Can’t really pay it off? Sorry can’t declare bankruptcy on school loans. I think universities are quite pointless as well. For most jobs they’ll take any major. My friend is an investment banker with an art degree. Everything you’ll learn necessary for most jobs is taught on site. They are just keeping a certain kind of people out - and helping to propagate the haves and the have nots.

Speaking of all this, ironically I just came upon a movie review of The Time Machine (1960). Haven’t seen it yet but it talks about this exact subject. Law of attraction at its best?