Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!bralick From: bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: Education Message-ID: Date: 29 Dec 89 18:15:34 GMT References: <7532@hubcap.clemson.edu> Organization: Self Similar Lines: 117 In article <7532@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: | From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): | > Children are least | > likely to know what is good for them in the long run. | | And so they have parents and academic advisors, who can | advise the student as necessary. They won't have parents if your statist plan for testing people for parenting skills (which I presume you will define) removes children from their homes. | The ability to use a library is a basic skill which facilitates the ~~~~~~~~~~~ Not for all career choices, e.g. manual laborers rarely need to use the library to enhance their earning potential _in their chosen profession_. | solving of practical problems which arise naturally in life. For ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | example, libraries provide information regarding the dealer prices | of new automobiles, which is quite useful for negotiating purposes. So the educational system is _not_ only supposed to teach the students only directly job related material but also things that the students might find useful in their lives as consumers and citizens (consumers of governement services, neh?). So now the discussion becomes a matter of degree. You will argue to minimize those things which will help the student to be an informed elector, and maximize those things which (in your opinion) will make them a more efficient producer. I am glad to see that you have finally admitted that school is not just for vocational education. | Of course, they can also use the library for leisurely pursuits if | they so desire, including the reading of history or literature. You don't seriously mean to imply that there is more to a person than work, do you? | > Speaking of money, I am still waiting for your measures of success | > on that financial fast-track: how much? | | Each individual must maximize according to his/her own measure of | success; psychic rewards are among the benefits which must be factored | into the measurement of success. Which doesn't answer the question. How did _psychic_ rewards get onto the _financial_ fast-track? I assume that you can't answer this question; that you want to design an educational system to achieve an unspecifiable objective. Sounds like a prescription for disaster. | > how fast? | | As soon as possible. If we eliminate unnecessary topics, I think we | could have people in a position of economic self-sufficiency by the | age of 18; this would be considered reasonably fast. Considered reasonably fast by whom? You? Define "economic self- sufficiency" and show that it is _not_ achievable under the current system by a motivated person. You seem to have shifted from the "fast-track" to "sufficiency." How will mere "self-sufficiency" keep people from selling drugs where they can earn the big money? | Not at all; I fully expect that people will make several false starts | before settling on their final objective. However, they will have | studied topics OF INTEREST TO THEM in the process of determining their | ultimate career objective. Baseball, television, etc. Remember, you have _no_ standards for a person's education -- just whatever happens to interest him. At age 6 how many children know that they want to be "brane serjens?" Are you advocating "shoving irrelevant material" down their very throats? A six-year-old who is going to be a professional ball player doesn't need irrelevant things like mathematics, computer science, literature, philosophy, spelling, etc. I can't imagine that you would advocate probably uncertified parents or even teachers to decide what children should learn in _any_ grade. Perhaps you would like to adjust your position to accomodate a planned curriculum in the lower grades. We can then argue about which grades constitute the lower grades. I say K-12. | > You are interested in subsidizing business, then. | | No, I'm interested in enabling individuals to efficiently pursue | economic power. As per Maslow's hierarchy, they will move to | satisfy their more pressing needs (food on the table, etc.) first. I disagree. You want to subsidize business. Business needs workers. If a business cannot find somebody who is already trained to their satisfaction, they will: a) Hire an untrained person and train them. b) Close their business. c) Form a consortium with other businesses to provide job related training to qualifying students. d) None of the above. I choose a) unless the problem is so serious that c) becomes necessary. Business should take the responsibility for their own training programs and not come begging to the taxpayer to bail them out of their problems. The citizens of this country don't have a direct interest in these businesses having a sufficient stock of trained workers. They _do_ have a direct interest in an informed electorate, though. Hmmm. Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli