Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!bralick
From: bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Education
Message-ID: <Bcib=v@cs.psu.edu>
Date: 31 Dec 89 05:20:41 GMT
References: <B1ye?q@cs.psu.edu> <7539@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Organization: Self Similar
Lines: 105

In article <7539@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
| 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.

No, you argue to make _everything_ optional; you imply here that 
there is some body of knowledge which is "strictly essential."
Is this a _required_ curriculum, or a menu of courses from which a
student can choose?

|    I have proposed the outright elimination of absolutely
|    nothing except certain unnecessary requirements.

You have proposed the elimination of _all_ requirements.  Isn't 
that what allowing the student to "pursue his own interests" 
means?  Do you mean you are going to "shove the `necessary
requirements' down the students' throats?"  You imply the
existence of "necessary requirements."  Who has decided that
they are "necessary?"  Saying that the student decides for
himself would indicate a clear misunderstanding of what a
"requirement" is, so maybe you want to change "requirements"
to "recommendations."

| > 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;

So "economic self-sufficiency" was a misnomer.  Why should an
overspecialized individual get paid the current wage which 
currently goes to a somebody with a broader educational 
background?  Your specialist cannot bring a broad range of 
skills to his job that a generalist can, thus deserves less
money.  

| > 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.

I am absolutely fascinated to learn how "psychic rewards" got onto
the "financial fast track to economic success."  Now we not only have
vaporous "requirements" being fulfilled, but also some kind of mystical
psychic benefits preventing anti-social behaviour.

The longer you argue for your position the more damage you do to it.

| ...
|    In some places (Kuwait, Alaska, etc.) there is a negative flow of money
|    from the government to the citizen;

Hmmm... "a negative flow of money from the government to the citizen" 
Isn't that what we usually call taxes?  Gee, I thought that there was
a _positive_ flow of money _from_ the government of Alaska _to_ the
citizens of Alaska.  You might be right about Kuwait, though.

|    the government actually pays each
|    citizen a certain amount of money each year.

Oops.  Looks like we got our negatives and positives backwards...

|    This is possible because
|    of great economic success in those regions.

Gee, it isn't because of the extractive nature of their
"economic success" is it?

|    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.

This is an interesting prediction.  How far in the future?  Which goods
will be automatically produced?  What subjects should a professional
consumer take in high school to prepare him to enter the job market
for professional consumers in a "reasonable amount of time" at the
current entry-level wage for professional consumers?  Is "professional
consumer" a euphemism for "welfare recipient?"

The most frightening thing isn't that you trot out this effluvia to
support your position, but that you apparently don't understand that
it doesn't support your argument because it is fantasy.  

Until and unless you can provide a reasonable argument for changing
the current educational system to you vocational-technical educational
system, I will consider this debate terminated (much to the glee of
the other readers of this group, I'm sure).


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