<p>Perplexitudinous -
I know that voting entails more than reading the ballot, but I was purposefully using reductionist rhetoric to make a point.
It is possible to finish public education without learning how to think, but it's more difficult to learn how to think without any formal education at all.</p>
<p>I haven't read the entire thread but the Original Poster is proof education should be mandatory</p>
<p>I think that education should be mandatory, but this quote is kind of scary -</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<pre><code>In our dreams...people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple...we will organize children...and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.
</code></pre>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Education should NOT be mandatory. People have natural rights, and it is tyrannical for the government to force people to go to school. People have rights, including not going to school.</p>
<p>Education should be compulsory. What else would kids do? Just watch TV and play videogames. Also school can be fun. I think that schools should help to help kids express ideas and grow their creativeness and not just cram facts.</p>
<p>Valawe, people have rights. Uneducated people make my life crappy. I have to pay for their crap since they work crappier jobs, get crappier salaries, and depend on others more. Get your crap done so I don't have to bear the burden of your inadequacy. Now that's a violation of rights.</p>
<p>I think education should be compulsory, but I think the current system is absolutely flawed. The question isn't whether school should be compulsory, but what kind of ed system we need to make things work better here. The main objective of school, in my mind, should be to produce kids who are competent (reading, writing well, basic math, some understanding of the scientific/political world around them) but MOST importantly capable of and excited to learn on their own. Much easier said than done, I know. It just drives me crazy that this traditional system rewards ONE type of intelligence, and many creative, smart people aren't acknowledged because they don't have the type of intelligence that means they can memorize things and do well on standardized tests. What do you guys think would be the ideal system?</p>
<p>Valawe, the Declaration outlines rights as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That pursuit of happiness includes the kind of job and lifestyle you'd like, and often that requires a pretty high level of education. In most cases, minors are in NO way mature enough to decide that they've had enough education to pursue the job and lifestyle they'd like.</p>
<p>More discussion:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Education as we know it does not accomplish what we believe it does</p>
<p>The more we discover about cognition and the brain, the more we will realize that education as we know it does not accomplish what we believe it does.</p>
<p>It is not my purpose to echo familiar critiques of our schools. My concerns are of a different nature and apply to the full spectrum of education, including our institutions of higher education, which arguably are the finest in the world.</p>
<p>Our understanding of the intersection between genetics and neuroscience (and their behavioral correlates) is still in its infancy. This century will bring forth an explosion of new knowledge on the genetic and environmental determinants of cognition and brain development, on what and how we learn, on the neural basis of human interaction in social and political contexts, and on variability across people.</p>
<p>Are we prepared to transform our educational institutions if new science challenges cherished notions of what and how we learn? As we acquire the ability to trace genetic and environmental influences on the development of the brain, will we as a society be able to agree on what our educational objectives should be?</p>
<p>Since the advent of scientific psychology we have learned a lot about learning. In the years ahead we will learn a lot more that will continue to challenge our current assumptions. We will learn that some things we currently assume are learnable are not (and vice versa), that some things that are learned successfully don't have the impact on future thinking and behavior that we imagine, and that some of the learning that impacts future thinking and behavior is not what we spend time teaching. We might well discover that the developmental time course for optimal learning from infancy through the life span is not reflected in the standard educational time line around which society is organized. As we discover more about the gulf between how we learn and how we teach, hopefully we will also discover ways to redesign our systems — but I suspect that the latter will lag behind the former.</p>
<p>Our institutions of education certify the mastery of spheres of knowledge valued by society. Several questions will become increasingly pressing, and are even pertinent today. How much of this learning persists beyond the time at which acquisition is certified? How does this learning impact the lives of our students? How central is it in shaping the thinking and behavior we would like to see among educated people as they navigate, negotiate and lead in an increasingly complex world?</p>
<p>We know that tests and admissions processes are selection devices that sort people into cohorts on the basis of excellence on various dimensions. We know less about how much even our finest examples of teaching contribute to human development over and above selection and motivation.</p>
<p>Even current knowledge about cognition (specifically, our understanding of active learning, memory, attention, and implicit learning) has not fully penetrated our educational practices, because of inertia as well as a natural lag in the application of basic research. For example, educators recognize that active learning is superior to the passive transmission of knowledge. Yet we have a long way to go to adapt our educational practices to what we already know about active learning.</p>
<p>We know from research on memory that learning trials bunched up in time produce less long term retention than the same learning trials spread over time. Yet we compress learning into discrete packets called courses, we test learning at the end of a course of study, and then we move on. Furthermore, memory for both facts and methods of analytic reasoning are context-dependent. We don't know how much of this learning endures, how well it transfers to contexts different from the ones in which the learning occurred, or how it influences future thinking.</p>
<p>At any given time we attend to only a tiny subset of the information in our brains or impinging on our senses. We know from research on attention that information is processed differently by the brain depending upon whether or not it is attended, and that many factors — endogenous and exogenous — control our attention. Educators have been aware of the role of attention in learning, but we are still far from understanding how to incorporate this knowledge into educational design. Moreover, new information presented in a learning situation is interpreted and encoded in terms of prior knowledge and experience; the increasingly diverse backgrounds of students placed in the same learning contexts implies that the same information may vary in its meaningfulness to different students and may be recalled differently.</p>
<p>Most of our learning is implicit, acquired automatically and unconsciously from interactions with the physical and social environment. Yet language — and hence explicit, declarative or consciously articulated knowledge — is the currency of formal education.</p>
<p>Social psychologists know that what we say about why we think and act as we do is but the tip of a largely unconscious iceberg that drives our attitudes and our behavior. Even as cognitive and social neuroscience reveals the structure of these icebergs under the surface of consciousness (for example, persistent cognitive illusions, decision biases and perceptual biases to which even the best educated can be unwitting victims), it will be less clear how to shape or redirect these knowledge icebergs under the surface of consciousness.</p>
<p>Research in social cognition shows clearly that racial, cultural and other social biases get encoded automatically by internalizing stereotypes and cultural norms. While we might learn about this research in college, we aren't sure how to counteract these factors in the very minds that have acquired this knowledge.</p>
<p>We are well aware of the power of non-verbal auditory and visual information, which when amplified by electronic media capture the attention of our students and sway millions. Future research should give us a better understanding of nuanced non-verbal forms of communication, including their universal and culturally based aspects, as they are manifest in social, political and artistic contexts.</p>
<p>Even the acquisition of declarative knowledge through language — the traditional domain of education — is being usurped by the internet at our finger tips. Our university libraries and publication models are responding to the opportunities and challenges of the information age. But we will need to rethink some of our methods of instruction too. Will our efforts at teaching be drowned out by information from sources more powerful than even the best classroom teacher?</p>
<p>It is only a matter of time before we have brain-related technologies that can alter or supplement cognition, influence what and how we learn, and increase competition for our limited attention. Imagine the challenges for institutions of education in an environment in which these technologies are readily available, for better or worse.</p>
<p>The brain is a complex organ, and we will discover more of this complexity. Our physical, social and information environments are also complex and are becoming more so through globalization and advances in technology. There will be no simple design principles for how we structure education in response to these complexities.</p>
<h1>As elite colleges and universities, we see increasing demand for the branding we confer, but we will also see greater scrutiny from society for the education we deliver. Those of us in positions of academic leadership will need wisdom and courage to examine, transform and justify our objectives and methods as educators.
[/quote]
</h1>
<p>===</p>
<p><a href="http://edge.org/q2005/q05_9.html#gopnik%5B/url%5D">http://edge.org/q2005/q05_9.html#gopnik</a></p>
<p>Points:</p>
<p>=> Read the statistics on how ignorant Americans are, in spite of them having gone to school. Apparently evolution is taught in schools, and yet 50% are still creationists? Apparently, however it's being taught, it's not working. Perhaps the content covered is valid, but the students aren't absorbing the information. </p>
<p>=> Many students do not remember what they learn. Education is admirable, but it is ignorant to the findings of educational psychology. Moreover, the problem with educational psychology is that it is based on the study of the educational system as is. It may suggest minor reforms in the school structure, but not a complete overhaul of the educational system.</p>
<p>In fact, for 12 years of schooling, it seems that most of the poorest learn almost nothing. They can't even pass state tests [which most of us disdain]. It's not the amount of schooling that does it in. It's the way they're taught. And granted, they are not taught the right way.</p>
<p>=> People learn at different speed and with different styles. It is well known that in any given class, those at the top will be bored, and those at the bottom will get nowhere. The gap widens.
=> Schools are a product of the industrial revolution. Before that, most people didn't go to school - and were still very social.</p>
<p>=> Active learning is more efficient than passive learning.</p>
<p>=> There are errors associated with tracking.</p>
<p>=> Asperger's Syndrome, Attention Deficit Disorder. Individuals with such disabilities may learn faster than those without, given the right conditions. Unfortunately,they are not possible in the original school system.</p>
<p>=> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$</p>
<p>So much is spent on a bureaucracy of nothing. This could be better spent [and I'm not a tax-hating libertarian].</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>The problems</p>
<p>(a) many educators are reluctant to accept the conclusion that there is variability in intelligence and learning style. While IQ tests are imperfect and may be based on flawed assumptions, there is still variability in the ability of students to learn.</p>
<p>Evolutionism does not deny creationism, nor does it explain the origin of life. It merely shows how a triangle headed bird can change into a square headed one over many generations, or how eventually, if humans intermingle, we'll all be a nice mocha color.</p>
<p>More reading:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.michna.com/intelligence.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.michna.com/intelligence.htm</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531%5B/url%5D">http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531</a>
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009535%5B/url%5D">http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009535</a>
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009541%5B/url%5D">http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009541</a></p>
<p>===</p>
<p>Suggestions? Interactive teaching. Methods to measure student progress with computers. And of course, the total breakdown of the lecture that assumes that students learn at the same rate. Instead, nationalize a lecture system. Vary the number of lectures available online to students. Students can choose between lectures and computer simulations. Students can rewind tapes. Replace teachers with people who can answer questions online. </p>
<p>==</p>
<p>Again, most of us at CC are unaware of how unintelligent many on the left end of the bell curve distribution are. It's not their fault that it's their way. Until neural implants and nootropic drugs make it possible for them to improve their intelligence, they have little chance in life, especially when robots can replace menial labor.</p>
<p>Under current tests, (read <a href="http://www.michna.com/intelligence.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.michna.com/intelligence.htm</a> ) - intelligence is largely genetic and unmalleable. 0.8 correlation between genetics and intelligence is significant.</p>
<p>Meaning does not have to come from social standing. In fact, social standing is well known to be correlated with heart disease and decreased lifespan if one is low on social standing. It's similar to depression. The problem with inequality is that America is quite diverse.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Evolutionism does not deny creationism, nor does it explain the origin of life. It merely shows how a triangle headed bird can change into a square headed one over many generations, or how eventually, if humans intermingle, we'll all be a nice mocha color.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Evolution and intelligent design are not mutually incompatible. In fact, the proponent of intelligent design is an evolutionist - he just points out "gaps" that evolution hasn't still yet filled in [but may fill in later]. Creationism, of course, is different. The problem though, is that people are amazingly unaware of the mechanisms of evolution, even after being taught. It's not just evolution. The ignorance that students have on US History is even more well-documented and blatant. And of course, the high failure rates on state test scores. It's that there is a key assumption inherent in education - that students will learn the content for once and for all after the teacher talks AT them and they take notes. They will subsequently lose their notes and forget what they're taught.</p>
<p>=</p>
<p>
[quote]
they ignored the fact that a full 43% of motorcyclists in accidents are uninsured, and the cost of treating a motorcycle injury is tens of thousands of dollars. wearing a helmet would significantly lessen the chance of injury and therefore lessen the cost of treatment. treatment for the uninsured (and for insured people too) costs soo much. the treatment of uninsured people is picked up by innocent taxpayers. and even if motorcyclists have insurance, their injuries cost the insurance corporations lots of $, driving up premiums for other, innocent customers. the conclusion--wear a helmet, not for your sake, but for the rest of society.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And apparently, people still are taught this, and still get into such injuries. Sciam Mind has an excellent article on risk-taking and drunk driving. The logic is simple. Like the tragedy of the commons. Most people who drive drunk do it with impunity. So according to the cost-benefit analysis, impulsive behavior usually wins.</p>
<p>===</p>
<p>You can't force children to learn something, even if they go to school to learn it. Many of them just won't absorb the information. Why? Because school is not taught in a way that students can actually most efficiently absorb the content.</p>
<p>We'd have more crime if stupid people weren't confined to school. Bright people can bend the mold and make the most of their opportunities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We'd have more crime if stupid people weren't confined to school. Bright people can bend the mold and make the most of their opportunities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This argument illustrates a lack of imagination. There are other ways for the less intelligent to pursue opportunities, outside of sitting in school and absorbing nothing</p>
<p>[/reality]</p>
<p>Yes, it's fantastic in theory and all but I'm just saying what would most likely happen if school weren't compulsory.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, it's fantastic in theory and all but I'm just saying what would most likely happen if school weren't compulsory.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Anyways, my theory is that those who commit crimes
(a) have little to lose
and
(b) don't have a direction in life other than to commit crime. This is related to a.
(c) have the time to commit crime.</p>
<p>So then there are a few questions/issues/concerns:</p>
<p>(a) do people need to have the entire day to them free to commit crime?
(b) if school clearly isn't helping them, then could there be something else for them to do? Employment isn't much of an option for many of them. But what of vocational, skill-based education, instead of public schooling to pass standardized tests? <a href="c">that from any IQ distribution, some will never pass no matter what?</a> are those in school really deterred from committing crimes, or not? It can be argued that school forces them to do nothing for a period of time, time that they can control an impulse to control a crime.</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>With that said though, those on the lower end of the IQ distribution probably need vocational training. Self-pursuing knowledge is not an activity of those of low IQ, as the research shows [pursuing knowledge on one's own initiative is correlated with IQ; I have to look up the research again]. In that case, public schooling or in job training is necessary for those of low IQ.</p>
<p>Then should schooling be compulsory for them? And not for those of higher IQ, forcing a societal double standard? Now, we don't know of what this will do. One's opinion on this is then contingent on one's political values. So here is where a debate could spring up.</p>
<p>Alas, egalitarianism. A value that denies egalitarianism may lead to further intolerance and discrimination to those who aren't intelligent enough. But one that affirms egalitarianism will waste resources on educational programs that are too slow or too fast.</p>
<p>And the merits of egalitarianism are contingent on the variability in many parameters. It may work better for some distributions than others.</p>
<p>Compulsory education is probably the single most effective driver of human capital development (and the often hand-in-hand economic development that accompanies it) of any government policy enacted anywhere in the world. Simple as that.</p>
<p>For that reason alone, compulsory education should be left as is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then should schooling be compulsory for them? And not for those of higher IQ, forcing a societal double standard? Now, we don't know of what this will do. One's opinion on this is then contingent on one's political values. So here is where a debate could spring up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unfortunantly, that would only increase the divide between rich and poor. One can improve their score with proper mental training - only the well-off can afford the time for such training.</p>
<p>If not in school, people's main focus would be to work and crime is enticing work for the unskilled.</p>
<p>There's a fairly hardworking kid at my school who has an average or so IQ. He want's to major in phys-ed. My roommate (going pre-med) and I (mech E.) really want him to reconsider, but in our discussion we came to the point of asking ourselves if we were recipients of the kid's skilled services, would we trust him. We reluctantly decided that we really couldn't trust his judgement in a multitude of skilled professions, but we're going to suggest he take a look into IT because poor judgement in all but the largest of companies can ussually be repaired.</p>
<p>It's almost unbearable to see the sheer helplessness in the kid because he works so hard and is so enthusiastic, but in the real world people need to make many quick decisions and we just couldn't concieve trusting his judgement.</p>
<p>The last paragraph in that link is a bit frightening. Teachers are being told to bore their students to get them used to it so that they won't lose their future unstimulating jobs?!</p>