WHY FIRST GRADE TO 12TH IS COMPLETELY USELESS, INCLUDING PARTS OF COLLEGE ..

Posts

SunflowerGames
The most beautiful user on RMN!
13323
How does Education prepare you for the workforce:

1) You need to get up early to go to school.

2) Your school has a routine schedule of classes, including lunch and recess.

3) At school you need to follow the directions of the teacher.

4) At school you need to get along with others and work on projects together.

5) You need to follow a certain format when completing a project. (ie. Essays)

6) Projects have deadlines.

And I didn't even go into everything here. This doesn't even touch on what you can learn in specific subjects.

I learned in science class that God didn't create the universe. That alone was worth the 12 years.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32367
author=Shinan
I don't know. I learned to read in school.

Really? Most people learn to read before school. I don't say that to disparage you, but you seem to write well, and those who write well generally learned to read quite early (These people were likewise read to at the earliest possible age; vis a vis, bedtime stories).

author=Shinan
Or I knew the very basics of reading beforehand but I would say that my reading comprehension much improved while in school.

Much more likely.

author=Shinan
Also writing. I don't know what that megapost was about but standardized writing is a great thing.

Standardized writing simplifies the teaching aspect. My overall feelings that standardized writing should be limited aside, standardized writing gives teachers a model to train students en masse (which has serious drawbacks, not the least of which is a lack of interpersonal communication between student and teacher, a fact that is lamented by the various boards of education throughout the country.)

The true point about standardized writing. It's only purpose is to give OTHER people a model to measure you by. There is no need for it. A teacher can create a standardized model him or herself based on his or her own reading and writing education that would work as well as any standardized system for teaching students en masse. Standardization creates an artificial measure. If you've been taught to read properly, you should have no problems reading the writing of another spelling system in the same language(the proof is in handwriting. The standardization of handwriting has failed so abysmally that it is no longer required learning in schools. Also, cursive has been abandoned. The typed word rules modern writing.).

author=Shinan
No matter the mysticism in past writings. Standardization overall is great just by the way.

Standardization in general is NOT a good thing. It creates an artificial one-size-fits-all measure that excludes any but the most mundane thinker. It is quite impossible to produce a mega-mind with the standardization formula, and those who have the potential often never realize it because of this formula. You are essentially saying that conforming is a great thing. Conformity neuters intellect and pulverizes imagination. Standardization does not work unless everyone subject to it conform and conformity and original thought are mutually exclusive (the very act of thinking for yourself is the essential basis of non-conformity).

Standardization has also proven itself not-so-great to the academic community, as teachers across the country are complaining about the current standardization standards being set to high. Their argument is that they are no longer teaching students but simply preparing them for the next standardized test.

Standardization has it's place, but all things in moderation. Absolute standardization is spelling the death knell of our public education system as hundreds of teachers are losing their jobs monthly, not because they are bad teachers, but because they are choosing to teach instead of making their students memorize the answers to tests. Those great inspirational teachers you people have been talking about? They've been fired for failing to meet the standards of government standardization.

author=Shinan
It simplifies thing greatly and means you don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. (another thing education does, it makes sure that everyone more or less has the same basic knowledge).

Reinventing the wheel has very little use, it's true, but simplifying education equals simplifying the mind, and thought. It's not a difficult equation.

My argument is this: school is good--government funded and standardized school is bad. We have given the education of our children over to an entity that has no inclination or desire to encourage free thought, and indeed, it is a government's inclination to discourage free thought. Why, in this day in age, it's become a criminal act to publish articles that challenge the sovereignty of our government, which lashes out like a dragon, its cry "Not considered protected speech," frankly ignoring the historical fact that the whole point of free speech is that the people could voice its opinions of the government and those in power without fear of reprisal. Springing to mind is the tale of Barret Brown, a journalist facing 105 years in prison for reporting on the practices of intelligence firms.

author=eplipswich
Anyone who says education is useless is completely forgetting about how education isn't just limited to books/study, but to moral values and such.

Absolutely.

author=eplipswich
Parents may be able to teach that, but certainly not as much as compared to schools.

Absolutely not. Are we now promoting the standardization of morals (morality and ethics being unique to culture and upbringing)? Where does it end? Would you push this as far as outlawing all religion other than one select "true" religion, which is the direction such an idea goes?

author=mawk
The problem with standardized writing is that it, by design, diminishes the alphabet to the role of nothing more than Lego blocks. Most people don't know that the letter C represents a cup that ancient people used when playing a game of dice. Therefore, it would never occur to you that when C appears in a word, it, by its principle meaning, represents an element of chance (just look at the full, oral, written and etymological meanings of OCCUR, PRINCIPLE, and CHANCE and you will see the truth of this). We sing the Alphabet Song and are never taught that we haven't begun to understand it.
ahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa jesus christ

I apologize, Mawk, if there is something here that somehow offends you. Did you have an opinion?
author=harmonic
You managed to deride both laziness and personal responsibility in the same statement.

Read it again.
I was deriding the person who espouses each individual earning a living off the sweat of their brow, while hypocritically using their time to write diatribes about how the system failed them instead of proposing solutions or working to better their lot in life.

fyi, no offense meant to you personally. I just have a personal bone to pick with libertarianism.
author=harmonic
author=mawk
calling people weak for arbitrary reasons, on the other hand, is a sign of immense personal strength!

my favourite thing about libertarians is that instead of taking steps to reduce unfair government practices, broaden the opportunities people of all classes have available, etc., most of them just spend their time acting as though all poor people deserve it because (long screed based heavily in the myth of bootstrapping goes here).
Though you have firmly established yourself as a contrarian and a shit-stirrer, I still feel compelled to defend modern libertarianism (aka classical liberalism) as a young, thus underdeveloped, NON-monolithic ideological entity. Generalizations made about "libertarians" are almost always based on an limited, agenda-driven opinions extracted directly from MSNBC.

then demonstrate how you're different, I think. 'that's a generalization' isn't a rebuttal in itself, you know? especially not when you exemplify my example!

libertarianism as pertains to theories on the benefits of smaller government (and in some cases self-governance) has some merit for discussion, but if the only way you put it into practice is by calling people weak for relying on the state (and conveniently ignoring the significant foundation provided to you from birth in order to pretend you're a wholly self-made man) then you're not a political ideologist but rather someone who only serves to inadvertently reinforce the current status quo with his 'fuck you, got mine' way of life.
harmonic
It's like toothpicks against a tank
4142
author=Dyhalto
I was deriding the person who espouses each individual earning a living off the sweat of their brow, while hypocritically using their time to write diatribes about how the system failed them instead of proposing solutions or working to better their lot in life.

fyi, no offense meant to you personally. I just have a personal bone to pick with libertarianism.

Right, and at no point did I take offense, or show any signs of taking offense.

The system hasn't failed me. That sounds like what a helpless victim would say. However, I am at the point where I have no doubt in my mind that putting your faith in the entrenched 2 political parties is a waste of energy, other than to simply be part of a team and try to 1-up the other guy, which I suspect is the primary motivation for most voters over any sense of ideological advancement.

A bone to pick with libertarianism pretty much sounds like an unshakable belief in violence, aggression and power. The opposite of libertarian is authoritarian, i.e. political control enforced literally by the barrel of a gun. Fall in line, or go to jail, or die. This is what the Democrat Party has become, not this fairy tale of a peaceful, tolerant utopia we're taught to believe growing up - (on topic... from public schools.) They're every bit as bad as Republicans ever were, having successfully blamed Bush for every evil in the world, and now they can take over the task of expanding government power, increasing taxes and fees on Americans, declaring more wars, and spying domestically, immune from criticism due to liberal voter selective ignorance.

Yes Mawk, I realize we were born into the time and place into which we were born. At no point did I claim to have invented fire, the car, the computer, running water, guns, and space flight all by myself. However, supporting an increasingly authoritarian and fascist system is not the answer. And these advancements that made modern civilization possible would never have happened in a Marxist utopia where everyone is equal - equally weak and dependent on a centralized bureaucracy.
author=zacheatscrackers
welp



Well then that guy needs to screw his head on more.

Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh/overly passionate at several points in my post, but I just hate it when people deride the values of education. Whether you like it or not, everyone needs it to some degree, and getting it through unconventional means just might not be the best way depending on who you are.
I feel like you too. That guy is an idiot.


Anyways I am going an example of my time in the AIr Force.

My job is Respiratory technician. In order to learn that I had to take a year and a half of school. Normally it takes 2 to 4 years but the military cut the classes you don't use like history, math etc.. and just teaches you what you need in order to do the job. After you finish the school you go do your job. But wait in order to do the job by yourself you need to pass another year of an apprenticeship. So I had to do a year of an apprenticeship in order to learn to do the job. Pretty much it was on the job training, so in reality I was doing school and a apprenticeship for over 2 years. I learn in school how everything works etc...but in the apprenticeship I put everything together in order to do the job. So tradtional school in needed in order to learn the theory behind the job, while the apprenticeship just put everything together in order to do the job correctly and efficiently.

Plus going to college you learn a lot of how society works etc...


author=:|
The opposite of libertarian is authoritarian, i.e. political control enforced literally by the barrel of a gun. Fall in line, or go to jail, or die. This is what the Democrat Party has become, not this fairy tale of a peaceful, tolerant utopia we're taught to believe growing up - (on topic... from public schools.) They're every bit as bad as Republicans ever were, having successfully blamed Bush for every evil in the world, and now they can take over the task of expanding government power, increasing taxes and fees on Americans, declaring more wars, and spying domestically, immune from criticism due to liberal voter selective ignorance.

Not this again. I do agree that the blame on Bush is a little overboard, but the rest sounds like something I would hear from Sean Hannity or Megyn Kelly. Expanding power? Such as? Increasing taxes is necessary. The country is in huge dept, and no one is willing to cut any spending. If we can cut the insane military budget, then we can lower taxes. Declaring more wars - which war? Spying domestically - this is sorta out of hand, yes. But the whole thing started after 9/11 and got worse from there. Bush did the same thing, but not many people paid attention to this back then.

The statement "immune from criticism due to liberal voter selective ignorance" is ridiculous. Many American voters don't understand what they are voting for or know what's going on in politics. That's an issue with both sides, not a liberal exclusive trait. And no, they aren't immune to criticism. They do get criticized when they do something stupid, such as Obama getting a severe backlash when he lied about Obamacare. We don't live in a bubble.

Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with the thread. Not sure why you just had to throw this in here.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32367
author=Mr_Detective
author=:|
The opposite of libertarian is authoritarian, i.e. political control enforced literally by the barrel of a gun. Fall in line, or go to jail, or die. This is what the Democrat Party has become, not this fairy tale of a peaceful, tolerant utopia we're taught to believe growing up - (on topic... from public schools.) They're every bit as bad as Republicans ever were, having successfully blamed Bush for every evil in the world, and now they can take over the task of expanding government power, increasing taxes and fees on Americans, declaring more wars, and spying domestically, immune from criticism due to liberal voter selective ignorance.
Not this again. I do agree that the blame on Bush is a little overboard, but the rest? Expanding power? Such as? Increasing taxes is necessary. The country is in huge dept, and no one isn't willing to cut any spending. If we can cut the insane military budget, then we can lower taxes. Declaring more wars - which war? The whole Syria mess has died down already. Spying domestically - this is sorta out of hand, yes. But the whole thing started after 9/11 and got worse from there. Bush did the same thing, but not many people paid attention to this back then.

The statement "immune from criticism due to liberal voter selective ignorance" is ridiculous. Many American voters don't understand what they are voting for or know what's going on in politics. That's an issue with both sides, not a liberal exclusive trait.


I couldn't agree more, and I think this goes to the core of this discussion. That people form opinions on subjects that they are not educated on is fine. The ill-informed opinion compels those who are educated on the subject to enlighten uninformed people. Such uninformed people learn things they hadn't considered and may, as a result, be inspired to seek greater understanding.

The problem comes in the fact that our information society takes ill-informed opinions seriously. The ill-informed don't have to seek understanding because instead of revealing their ignorance, society, driven by the need for such ridiculous concepts as political correctness, bolsters the egos of the ill-informed by validating their ill-informed opinions. Our current system of government and the way our voting system works is a perfect example.

There is no such thing as a benevolent government. A government's sole purpose to control it's populace. Human's are a natural force that cannot be contained or controlled. The government eventually realizes this and thus lends itself greater authority, establishing regulation after regulation to increase its control over an uncontrollable system. Thus, every government, by nature, must eventually become totalitarian. It's not a theory. It's an inevitability.
author=harmonic
A bone to pick with libertarianism pretty much sounds like an unshakable belief in violence, aggression and power. The opposite of libertarian is authoritarian, i.e. political control enforced literally by the barrel of a gun.
See, this is one of my pet peeves with libertarians in general. This infantile belief that there exists only freedom-loving Libertarianism and evil Despotism-by-many-names. The especially extreme ideologues can't even make an observational distinction between monarchy and republic. They're all "the state" which has a scary "monopoly of force" to oppress people.

And the hilarious irony is that it's because of this "monopoly of force" being given to a popularly-agreed-upon entity via the social contract that we don't have to worry about our peers exerting force on us, like medieval Italian sovereign lords who had to wear armor while plowing fields for fear of attack.

author=Mr_Detective
Increasing taxes on Wall Street is necessary.
I corrected it.
Also, nationalize the Federal Reserve.

author=pianotm
There is no such thing as a benevolent government. A government's sole purpose to control it's populace. Human's are a natural force that cannot be contained or controlled. The government eventually realizes this and thus lends itself greater authority, establishing regulation after regulation to increase its control over an uncontrollable system. Thus, every government, by nature, must eventually become totalitarian. It's not a theory. It's an inevitability.
Blech.
You were saying good stuff until you got here.
Government has a lot of purposes, like standardizing and protecting property rights, enforcing laws, directing resources, the list goes on forever.
When you make some oversimplified claim like "it's sole purpose is to control the populace", well, that's just fucking stupid. The next guy could just as easily say government's sole purpose is to "protect the oil companies" or "steal our wealth" or "oppress blacks and hispanics and protect whites". You can see how intellectually empty it is.
author=Sated
"The opposite of libertarian is authoritarian, i.e. political control enforced literally by the barrel of a gun."

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.


Absolutely!
the opposite of people with cat avatars is buttheads ehehehEhEHEHEHEHEHEHE.
harmonic
It's like toothpicks against a tank
4142
author=Mr_Detective
Declaring more wars - which war?

Acknowledging the predictable leftist tactic of reductio ad absurdum, and accusations of dissenter's ignorance rather than presenting information outside of the character/intellect of the opponent, the fact that you think the current administration isn't a warmongering administration is a testament to the hypocrisy of your arguments.

Do you really think the Democrat Party has taken steps to pull back our "war on terror" and promote peace? Or are you just trolling? Go read a little bit about the continued American military aggression since Obama has taken office. Citation? Google. It's everywhere.

author=Dyhalto
author=harmonic
A bone to pick with libertarianism pretty much sounds like an unshakable belief in violence, aggression and power. The opposite of libertarian is authoritarian, i.e. political control enforced literally by the barrel of a gun.
See, this is one of my pet peeves with libertarians in general. This infantile belief that there exists only freedom-loving Libertarianism and evil Despotism-by-many-names. The especially extreme ideologues can't even make an observational distinction between monarchy and republic. They're all "the state" which has a scary "monopoly of force" to oppress people.

And the hilarious irony is that it's because of this "monopoly of force" being given to a popularly-agreed-upon entity via the social contract that we don't have to worry about our peers exerting force on us, like medieval Italian sovereign lords who had to wear armor while plowing fields for fear of attack.

Dyhalto, you're talking about anarchism. Libertarians believe in the law being the ultimate authority, and peace and order. This is a departure from the zealous political extremists who currently run the country, who see government as a tool to vote themselves the resources of others.

Fortunately, the tide has been turning against the current administration - it's actually quite surprising to see so many people that are still raging Obama apologists. I guess everyone needs something to believe in.
the best thing about this ridiculous and unfounded tea-party hyperbole is that the man posting them has a pony saluting a flag for his avatar -- meaning he probably believes every word
Intentionally provocative thread title made to incite a response, followed by needless bickering and political platitudes that are now threatening to make this topic go off the rails. Brilliant.

Regardless of how well a school is run or not, one must not forget that schools exist for social engineering as well as education. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to the individual to decide, but to say they are 'useless' or solely made to raise cotton farming peasants or something is a hilarious oversimplification.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32367
author=Dyhalto
author=pianotm
There is no such thing as a benevolent government. A government's sole purpose to control it's populace. Human's are a natural force that cannot be contained or controlled. The government eventually realizes this and thus lends itself greater authority, establishing regulation after regulation to increase its control over an uncontrollable system. Thus, every government, by nature, must eventually become totalitarian. It's not a theory. It's an inevitability.

Blech.
You were saying good stuff until you got here.
Government has a lot of purposes, like standardizing and protecting property rights, enforcing laws, directing resources, the list goes on forever.
When you make some oversimplified claim like "it's sole purpose is to control the populace", well, that's just fucking stupid. The next guy could just as easily say government's sole purpose is to "protect the oil companies" or "steal our wealth" or "oppress blacks and hispanics and protect whites". You can see how intellectually empty it is.


Very interesting. You do understand that this doesn't argue anything? You do understand that this is so poorly thought out, you actually support my statement? Further, you do understand that you are only in contention by saying that I am "fucking stupid" and that anybody could make this assertion.

The government is there to standardize (control the flow of all things by means of set guidelines and legal restrictions) and protect property (How? By preventing people from committing acts that defraud property owners and prevent vandalism), to enact laws (that anybody would even cite this as being contrary to control is absurd in the extreme. It's so idiotic I shouldn't even dignify it with a response.), directing resources (which cannot be done unless people are categorized as a resource , because resources cannot be directed without directing people).

The next guy cannot easily say any such thing. Protecting the oil companies or stealing wealth or oppressing certain groups and favoring others does not logically follow the core equation, rather they are each possible conclusions governments may draw in the course of maintaining order. Order is an unnatural force. Chaos is the natural order. God does not draw in straight lines. Order is the act of controlling Chaos. Government cannot justify its existence any other way.

Government is not a fact of science, nature, or society, but a figment of the public imagination. That is to say, it exists exclusively because the people will it to exist. It is the living embodiment of the idea that existence is only as real as we perceive it to be. I will take the risk of even saying that the existence of government is a magical act of human consciousness.

It exists because we believe it exists, we want it to exist, and since many people are incapable of thinking for themselves, we need it to exist. You can say this isn't true because government would continue to exist if we stopped believing in it, however that is not where the proof lies. Once you believe in something, ceasing that belief won't make it go away. Santa Claus (Saint Nikoloas, Bishop of Myra) died in the fourth century, yet to this very day children everywhere absolutely expect him to climb down their chimneys on the 25th December each year.

If everyone in the world died except you, you would continue to exist, because you transcend belief. If the government mobilized its army and decided that the best way to preserve peace would be to exterminate all civilians, then government would cease to exist because it does not transcend belief. The military would have nobody to protect and no reason to guard it's secrets. Congress would have nobody to regulate. The Supreme Court would have no laws to consider. The entire system would cease to serve a purpose. The Senators would either go home and establish a normal life, or obsess with their office by going in every day and remember that there is no point to being there. Like that, it would vanish, because without the people, it cannot exist, because government is not a real entity, but a philosophical one. One that with the above test, proves absolutely to be just as illusory as unicorns.

Dyhalto, instead of reacting, think out your argument.

Ratty524
The 524 is for 524 Stone Crabs
12986
This was the best piece of comedy I've heard from you guys all night!

Wait a minute...