<p>High schools take your soul. Graduate/Postgraduate studies reclaim it -- it's only a matter of surviving what's in between.</p>
<p>(smoking a pipe in satin bathrobe as I type this)</p>
<p>I think you read too much into my post... I was trying to generate discussion, not a critique of my imaginative capabilities or assumptions I didn't make.</p>
<p>Also, I think eugenia has a point. Do you ever have fun?... aside from CC, that is ;)</p>
<p>If you want an academic source, how about some literature that I think describes your attitude.
From David Malouf's "An Imaginary Life" (Vintage International, 1978, p.67):
"Everything else about us exists purely for use. ... For these people it is a new concept, play."</p>
<p>Okay. Well, I'm actually using this account to experiment with different styles of analyzing other people's posts. So I sometimes try to be as critical as possible (since I haven't been able to do that yet). Don't take it too personally. It's an online forum. I need some space to experiment with analyzing things as carefully as I can, and then self-correcting such mistakes of mine, and a forum is an excellent point for that space.</p>
<p>The "schooling gives you social skills" argument has been used ad nauseam though, so I finally got somewhat irritated by it and needed to develop some sort of generic response to that. I'll have to modify it, of course. I'm still trying to improve my writing, and the only way for me to improve it is to discuss something, find my own mistakes (logically and axiomatically - axiomatically when I make assumptions), and to modify them accordingly (often in my personal blog). The forum, at least, provides a mode for me to discuss that something. If someone can refute me, all the better. Sometimes, I've learned a lot from refutations.</p>
<p>But in this world, some people are more comfortable with socializing in school (without having to take so much energy into forming new friends), rather than through extra-curricular activities. In that, you can say that "I feel that I'd get more social skills out of interacting with people in school than at home, and that feeling is specific to myself." Your post probably implies just that (and the implications I must guess at, and are where I may be wrong at) Of course, that argument could be self-fulfilling (in that self-fulfilling prophecies often betray a lack of imagination on a person's part). The "lack of imagination" argument, in any case, can be applied to anyone, including myself, because the "lack of imagination" is a property of non-omniscient individuals. I do feel, though, that this is often an impediment to social progress, in that people are sufficiently un-motivated enough to change towards an unexplored possibility. But to the rational agent, it is often more cost-efficient to stay with the explored territory (explored by people who are similar enough to the rational agent such that the rational agent can trust the experiences of such people with respect to what he may envision his experiences as).</p>
<p>And as for whether I have fun or not - I have fun by thinking (and learning- about lots of diverse subjects). I make a huge jump by speaking for others when I promote unschooling/homeschooling. I do believe that it is viable, given that the neurological characteristics of those who are homeschooled seem little different from those who are not homeschooled. Many unschoolers have traveled around the world to learn (when they would have been drilled at school). I'm not one of them, but I do like to discuss, nonetheless. </p>
<p>As per the quote "Everything else about us exists purely for use. ... For these people it is a new concept, play," you make the assumption that my writing style implies that I am a strict utilitarian who believes that the way a person lives his life must be guided by strict logical principles, given some axioms to follow. That assumption, while well-understood, isn't quite the way I envision life as. I just like to comment on life and to study it. But I do dare say that public schooling betrays a lack of imagination on the part of those who willingly submit themselves to such an institution - in that they cannot imagine themselves learning via another alternative route that may be viable, provided that they were exposed to such a route when early (I still believe that socialization in the early years is important, in order for people to learn unconscious rules of social communication, but that school has been unnecessarily prolonged in the industrial age). However, such lack of imagination is expected out of social animals like humans. Nonetheless, a listing of the problems of mass schooling can at least provide the impetus for a few to change, and once a few change, more will follow, as social dynamics often goes.</p>
<p>Now, on the other hand, it can be said that many homeschoolers do desire more of a social life than what they do have (the extent of this measure can only be done by surveys I am currently unaware of, though they probably have been done). I think that one of the problems with anti-homeschooling arguments is that such arguments focus more on the "development of skills" rather than the "having fun" part of childhood - and these anti-homeschooling arguments can be refuted by studies that show that homeschoolers are little worse off socially than non-homeschoolers (again, I have to look for such studies, but most anti-homeschoolers do not cite such studies either, and many of them know few homeschoolers). Of course, some homeschooling experiments go off bad, but many public schooling experiments go off worse. One of the main concerns is that the student is under the supervision of a parent. But can the student be trusted to be inside the home? That argument can already be refuted by the examples of homeschoolers who already hae such arrangements made.</p>
<p>Then the question is.</p>
<p><are there="" socioeconomic="" and="" psychological="" differences="" between="" the="" homeschoolers="" who="" have="" had="" such="" arrangements="" made,="" with="" non-homeschoolers="" in="" rest="" of="" crowd,="" may="" find="" more="" difficult="" to="" pursue?="" (and="" potentially="" be="" an="" argument="" against="" extension="" homeschooling)="" yes.="" are="" socioeconomically="" advantaged="" compared="" crowd.=""> But imagination could perhaps provide for untested arrangements that may work for more. We can only wait and see.</are></p>
<p>Arguments can come in two forms. (a) the proposal is theoretically possible, i.e. possible for a few people who are neurologically exceptional, and (b) that it is practically possible, that is, the proposal is superior to existing arrangements for a considerable contingent of the population. A practically possible proposal must be practically possible only under certain specified conditions and "success indicators."</p>
<p>So if the answer to "Are there socioeconomic and psychological differences between the homeschoolers who have had such arrangements made, with non-homeschoolers in the rest of the crowd, who may find such arrangements more difficult to pursue?" is Yay, then that answer may be a challenge to (b) the argument that homeschooling is practically possile for a large contingent of the popuation.</p>
<p>Homeschooling is already theoretically possible, as demonstrated by the successful homeschoolers in the past. Mass homeschooling is practically possible in the eras of the past. The more important question is - is mass homeschooling practically possible in this era?</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>Back to the original question. Educational systems (and indicators of performance) are social constructs. A social construct is a construct that could easily be otherwise. The question is, do you find value in an indicator of performance? There is no intrinsic value in an indicator of performance beyond what employers and other people can infer about your ability to go into a college/field based on how you compare with other people on such an indicator of performance, and on how the college/field sees how that indicator of performance is correlated with performance in the college/field. </p>
<p>There are no other intrinsic values in such indicators of performance, unless the person decides to place some intrinsic value into it (example being Asian parents). Moreover, one can find value in other colleges/fields that do not weigh such indicators of performance as highly (or demand that people score on such indicators of performance as highly). The transvaluation that the person has taken indicates that he is willing to be open-mindeded to seeing himself in other colleges/fields.</p>
<p>This all, is assuming that the NP(systems that such indicators of performance are based on) have no value beyond how they are perceived by external institutions (in this case, colleges/fields). But most people do find some value in such systems. They may feel that such systems are fun, and may pursue their study in such a way as to not take such systems seriously, and to make their experiences with such systems more fun. To gain something out of such systems.</p>
<p>Like one can gain so much out of AP and SAT II self-study. I did. That was one of the best decisions I ever made. My only regret was that I did not do more. </p>
<p>NP - noun phrase. I parenthesize them whenever I feel that a long NP may make reading (by either myself or the intended audience) difficult.</p>
<p>Why not have a combined education? </p>
<p>The problem I have with both school and "unschool" is that they both limit you to one side of the spectrum. My ideal education, which has been close to the one I've had so far, has a few components... </p>
<ol>
<li><p>School, for a few reasons. First, it builds community. This, to me, happens most effectively not just because of school, but because of activities made more accessible by school. Of course, there are music lessons, sports teams, and everything availiable in a community setting for homeschoolers. The thing is, school really helps. If you want to take music lessons in my city or be in a private ensemble - you need to buy/rent your own instrument, have lessons, etc. If you go to school, you can be in band or orchestra, instruction is provided relatively free in a class setting, you get discount instrument rental rates, etc. I've taken a lot of extra curricular activities inside and outside school, but my most valuable ones have been connected to school and I think they even include some "unschooling" in their own way - I travelled across the country 3 times and internationally once for Model UN (all these trips were also heavily discounted because of school). You can definetly gain an international perspective online, but in my mind that doesn't begin to compare with debating world issues in person with teens from Dubai, Paris, and Greece just to name a few places. </p></li>
<li><p>Unschooling. Travel. Go to museums. Be a tourist in your own city if that's all you can do. Pursue interests outside of school. I've done all of the above, a few thanks to my parents, and it helps. I think that this type of education, if you work at it, can only help supplement a school-based education, and vice-versa. I went to Montreal with Model UN right after taking Canadian History 10 - and I recognized all the names on monuments, etc, and both types of education were enhanced. You could learn it all online or at home, but why limit yourself? People see the internet as making connections, which it does, but I think it also breaks them when you limit yourself too much to the online world. This is what I was trying to get across in my original post. It's important to be able to learn through self-motivation, but school can be fun too. ;)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Okay. Haha, you certainly have a lot of extra-curriculars. It seems that you are attributing your most valuable extra-curriculars all to school. It's probably true that it's easier to pursue many of these activities through school, though it's quite possible that one could pursue such activities through homeschooling as well. The problem, of course, is that so few people homeschool such that it's easiest to pursue them through school. It seems that most unschoolers do have your range of extra-curriculars (as one can see through reading the "Teenage Libertarion Handbook"). But logically, we must compare the differences between yourself and such unschoolers, and ask the question, "are there differences between yourself and such unschoolers, that may prevent you from having the full spectrum of opportunities that such unschoolers have?" If that is such the case, then it is possible that you may only be able to pursue such activities through school (with a group of friends. It seems that most unschooling parents are very well-connected and socialized). Moreover, it also depends on the friends your parents make, and the community that you reside in.</p>
<p>One other question, of course, is, well, of what value is what is actually done in school to you? (value that cannot be pursued elsewhere?) The value of an institution depends on the environment you're surrounded in - and if you have a difficult time finding people to hang out with online or through parental connections or extra-curriculars, then it's fully understandable that you may find such people to hang out with in school. </p>
<p>I'm somewhat more of an analytical nerd enclosed in my own space, so I have a tendency to argue for unschooling based on other grounds (that the analytical skills are best taught when the student can pursue them on his own initiative, via mechanisms such as distance learning). I also tend to see the benefits of unschooling as contained primarily in the Internet, which allows free access to all the knowledge that one can learn in grade school and college (provided that one has a reliable mechanism of searching and discriminating between useful and useless information). But if you want to be a worldly well-rounded person, then the Internet isn't necessarily the mechanism that makes unschooling far more viable than it used to be. It opens up many opportunities, but unschoolers who want to be well-acquainted with the world can travel on their own initiative, with or without the Internet. </p>
<p>Basically, I think that both the person who desires to be well-rounded, and the person who values analytical pursuits, can benefit most from unschooling and self-studying, rather than going to school. But since many opportunities for pursuing extra-curriculars are limited to schools (in some regions), one may be wise to go to school to pursue such opportunities. Whereas the person who values analytical pursuits need not be constrained by region or access to university libraries, thanks to the Internet. Most websites with ".edu" on the end of them are fairly reliable, as are many online textbooks (free ones are available).</p>
<p>Also, as for the imagination argument, it seems to be that those who have the most cultural capital, and know how to distinguish between (a) relevant and (b) reliable information from the irrelevant/unreliable would be the best are unschooling/self-studying, since they know what to do with their time. Most people do not have such cultural capital, and may be clueless in how they go about their unschooling/self-studying. Sadly, it's difficult to transfer cultural capital, especially given the interests of professionals who wish to remain in power (teacher unions, for example).</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I think it's clear that the lecture format of schools needs to be replaced, seeing how it's clear that people forget so much of what they learn through drills. Schools can be replaced with discussions of sorts (I could argue online forums, some would argue other modes of discussion that are more comfortable for them). For the analytical pursuits, this is where online learning supplants lectures.</p>
<p>Still, only a very few number of people have parents who are willing to send them on such pursuits. Mine certainly aren't, for example.</p>
<p>I'm still reading and developing my thoughts, but I often compare public schooling with planned economies. Sometimes, public schooling is more effective for some tasks (such as indoctrination of the masses), just as planned markets are more effective for prioritizing one good over another, irrespective of how the people feel about such good. But when we desire a free society, where each is free to pursue one's own full potential, and to find a niche within society, that the government cannot realize what is best for each student (just as the government cannot accurately set each price for each product in the economy => there are just too many variables, and people are generally accurate in getting what they desire).</p>
<p>With that all said, the Internet provides us with more information than we could ever get at in any institution. Pretty much anything one can learn can be found via the Internet.</p>
<p>What this means, is that education needs to focus on (a) searching for the information and (b) distinguishing what is (1) relevant and (2) reliable from what isn't relevant/reliable, instead of the memorization that it has been based upon for so long. As John Holt said, "The true test of intelligence is not how much we know how to do, but how to behave when we don't know what to do". A school purports to educate the student, but miserably fails in such a process, in its very own mechanisms of teaching the student. </p>
<p>These students should have years to develop their reading and writing through practice and critique. They should also have years to expose themselves to different subjects, and to discuss them (a) over forums or (b) with other students in real life. Eventually, they will have to face exams (and not aptitude tests, but rather, tests for particular professions). But many exam prep guides will help people study for such exams. There is already enough differentiation in the results of subject-based tests, such that there is no reason to differentiate people on the results of aptitude-based tests.</p>
<p>If a person finds information that he doesn't know, he should have the wherewithal to quickly find it over the Internet. He can also post the question on an online forum. The problem with schools is that they are in such bloated bureaucracies such that there is a huge time lag between "new info that is important" and "info to be put into the curriculum," and "new info that is important" is frequent in the information age. It is the ability to deal with that "new info," to search through it and to differentiate the relevant/reliable from the irrelevant/unreliable, that is an education.</p>
<p>For the lower classes (who are not gaining much from public schooling in the first place, as numerous studies and state test failing rates clearly demonstrate), the solutions are difficult. But I think we should have the imagination to think of a solution beyond the school, given that the schools are doing so little for them. The book "Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality" (Oakes) clearly exemplifies this trend - many lower level classes repeat the course material over and over again - and the students still don't learn. A solution that goes beyond the school is required.</p>
<p>The other issue is motivation. How are we going to motivate lower class students to find a niche in society? The problem is, that the institution already does a very poor job in motivating them as is. There are many books that document this. Among them:</p>
<p>Lareau, Annette. 1989. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education. New York: The Falmer Press.</p>
<p>MacLeod, Jay. 1995. Ain’t No Makin’ It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood. San Francisco: Westview Press.</p>
<p>Oakes, Jeannie. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press. </p>
<p>==</p>
<p>So now what? Their parents are poor, the students are ill-motivated, resources are scarce, how? Well, if we could try to keep the government from meddling with schools, freeing up tax funds that are otherwise wasted, perhaps they could be redirected for some solution for the lower classes. But the problem comes from the intrinsic nature of American society. Its heterogeneity, and the psychological depression in the lower classes (well documented in a Scientific American article that I need to pull out again). </p>
<p>So haha, I carved out an utopia. =P Still, utopias are an interesting way to think about things.</p>
<p>next time, instead of developing a world which doesn't exist and never will, get a beer, some people of the opposite gender, dance music, and make use of what is given to you in the world which is around you.</p>
<p>My post wasn't solely based on carving out an utopia - it was also consisted of thoughts of what would produce the most marginal utility for any person.</p>
<p>Moreover, eugenia, by the statement "get a beer, some people of the opposite gender, dance music, and make use of what is given to you in the world which is around you," you're implying that you believe that the normative standards you believe in would fit me better than whatever normative standards that I subscribe to. Perhaps such normative standards of yours would fit in with the vast majority of people who you may come across. But they will not fit in with some people who you may come across - and I have reasons for believing that I am not one of those people.</p>
<p>totally agree with thread maker. great rant :)</p>
<p>How about some people of the /same/ gender? </p>
<p>And replace beer with rum and coke. I don't like beer :(.</p>
<p>-</p>
<p>But good post! Even though it's being hijacked by some really long-winded guy with too much time on his hands.</p>
<p>i agree with you, education its a waste of time jajja lol.</p>
<p>We don't need no education, we dont need no mass control, no dark sarcasm in the classroom, teachers leave us kids alone... Hey teachers leave us kids alone!! Who needs any of this</p>
<p>buddy wanna cracker?</p>
<p>InquilineKea, have you ever heard of Dayna Martin?</p>