Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!ogicse!emory!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: Education Message-ID: <7531@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: 29 Dec 89 06:36:28 GMT References: Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu Lines: 29 From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): > IMHO it should be the _last_ priority of the secondary school to > train a student for a trade. The first priority should be to > teach the basic skills (reading, writing, mathematics, computer > skills, library skills, thinking skills, a foreign language, etc.) > necessary for the student to pursue a lifetime of learning > (i.e. the pursuit of their own interests), the second should > be to produce a literate, informed electorate, and once those > two missions are accomplished, the student can then be trained > in life skills (how to balance a check book, why one shouldn't > borrow for consumption, how to prepare meals, change diapers, etc.), > and then finally one (or several) trades. Well, clearly we have markedly different priorities. Life skills are top priority, followed by making money. The rest is optional, at the student's discretion. If the student chooses not to vote (a popular option), fine; if a decision is made not to learn any foreign languages, no problem -- many Americans will never have any practical opportunity to make use of foreign languages anyway. Of course, this would actually mean that people have the right to self-determination, as opposed to the need to be force-fed the idealized image of The Perfect Citizen held by certain educators, but this would mean that educators would actually have to justify the value of the optional materials they are presenting, and we couldn't have that, now, could we? Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu