Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caesar.cs.montana.edu!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: <7539@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 29 Dec 89 23:13:20 GMT
References: <B1ye?q@cs.psu.edu>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 94

From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick):
> 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.

   No, I argue to MAKE OPTIONAL those things which are not strictly
   essential.  I have proposed the outright elimination of absolutely
   nothing except certain unnecessary requirements.  Nothing prevents
   people from taking exactly the same material under the new system
   as they would have taken under the old system; the difference is
   considerably greater freedom of choice.

> | > 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.  

   The ability to work in the profession of one's choice at a rate
   of pay equal to that which is currently obtained by entry-level
   workers in said profession; currently there are large quantities 
   of irrelevant material which prevent achieving this within a 
   reasonable period of time.  

> How will mere "self-sufficiency"
> keep people from selling drugs where they can earn the big money?

   The psychic rewards will shift from negative to positive, and
   achieving the shift will be viewed as feasible.

> |    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.

    Certainly the literature and the philosophy will be inessential;
    however, mathematics will assist in the understanding of batting
    averages; spelling is a "life skill"; a bit of physics would be
    useful in understanding the processes of pitching, batting, and
    catching; marketing would be useful in understanding how to ensure
    that the seats in the stadium are filled with as many rear ends as
    possible; and so on.  There is ample room for relevant material.
 
    I think you are being overly pessimistic in claiming that students
    will immediately attempt to flood the market for baseball players;
    not everyone wants to do that.  While a six-year-old may not know
    that s/he wants to become a brain surgeon, s/he may well show a
    great interest in biology.  As s/he traverses the tree (or digraph)
    of knowledge, marginal decisions will be made as to which area(s) 
    look more interesting; ultimately, the pattern will converge upon
    some region(s) of professional certification.  In this way, students
    will pursue professional self-determination.   

> |    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.
>
> 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.

   We'll have to disagree on this one.  If a person with the intellectual
   capacity of a Ronald Reagan can run the country, then the system is
   clearly capable of pretty much running itself.  What is *really* needed 
   is greater economic strength.

   In some places (Kuwait, Alaska, etc.) there is a negative flow of money
   from the government to the citizen; the government actually pays each
   citizen a certain amount of money each year.  This is possible because
   of great economic success in those regions.  In the future, the economy
   will be automated to such an extent that it will be possible for us to
   be professional consumers of the many goods and services which are 
   automatically produced.  People will be free to do research all their 
   lives if they so desire, to study Shakespeare all their lives, whatever 
   they wish.  This situation will arise much more quickly if a greater 
   effort is made by educators to accelerate the process of economic 
   development; the present system is serving to hold it back relative 
   to what could very easily be achieved instead.

   
   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu