Poll: 80% of what you learn in school is useless?
- Thread starter awesomeClaw
- Start date
I think its more the general education idea. Everyone has to learn a little of everything. In Germany, I beleive, they have you get this general education till about 10th grade or equvilant, and than you are tested and go to a specialized school.
The people who didn't say 90% percent haven't gone to college (I know, I have to be that guy) or they took something easy in college. Being on the 5 year plan for computer science was the worst thing that ever happened to me (back then at least); all the useless shit you learned in highschool gets rehashed over and over until you're just sitting there thinking, "Okay, Phospholipids are cool and all, but WHO THE FUCK CARES AND HOW IS THIS GOING TO HELP ME WITH MY LIFE?!?!"
And people wonder why all these kids snap and do crazy shit at school. I would know, I went to VTech. The idea that it was about him hating rich people is bull, the kid was just an engineering major. I saw more potential psychopaths in my classes than I've ever seen in my entire life, and each of them was filled with so much hate for the curriculum that runs your life for 20 something fucking years that I'm honestly surprised it only happened once.
Sorry if that was fucked up to say or something, but I truly meant no offence by it... Go Hokies! "Stick it in" for life! (God that sounds awful.)
And people wonder why all these kids snap and do crazy shit at school. I would know, I went to VTech. The idea that it was about him hating rich people is bull, the kid was just an engineering major. I saw more potential psychopaths in my classes than I've ever seen in my entire life, and each of them was filled with so much hate for the curriculum that runs your life for 20 something fucking years that I'm honestly surprised it only happened once.
Sorry if that was fucked up to say or something, but I truly meant no offence by it... Go Hokies! "Stick it in" for life! (God that sounds awful.)
Not at all, really, but the amount of work they force you to complete versus the amount learned from said work is inconceivable.
What you learn in school is _not_ useless. The idea (and existence) of school _is_ more or less useless.
Of course I am speaking to the idea of school through to the beginning of university.
Yes you read that correctly and there is no contradiction. You are defined by what you create, not what is forced into you. But the latter is the rule rather than the exception in schools, almost by construction. And we are the poorer for it.
=]
Of course I am speaking to the idea of school through to the beginning of university.
Yes you read that correctly and there is no contradiction. You are defined by what you create, not what is forced into you. But the latter is the rule rather than the exception in schools, almost by construction. And we are the poorer for it.
=]
That's assuming knowledge can be useless, I mean sure, learning about what the whale represents in Moby Dick wouldn't help an engineer in his job, but just because it doesn't help progress one's career doesn't make it useless.
Learning is an end in itself, it doesn't need to benefit some other facet of someone's life for it to be deemed of value.
(What do you know, I actually ended up using some of Kant's jargon)
Learning is an end in itself, it doesn't need to benefit some other facet of someone's life for it to be deemed of value.
(What do you know, I actually ended up using some of Kant's jargon)
I ticked the 10-30% box, and that's purely because you're likely to go into a field that negates at least some of what you learn. I mean, I'm going into Arts/Media, so I'm not going to spend a great deal of time thinking about physics and gravitational potential energy. Does that make everything I learned in math and science useless? No. Not at all.
Most of the 'useless', or shall I say non-applicable things we learn come in our last few years at school, which are there to give you as many options as possible in terms of careers or future tertiary studies. All those courses are preparing somebody out there for something. But, for those of us who don't use them, those little bits of information we forget are building upon essential skills, like the ability to write and articulate properly, or how to manage numbers, or even just how to plan. One can't just disregard all of that, can one?
Most of the 'useless', or shall I say non-applicable things we learn come in our last few years at school, which are there to give you as many options as possible in terms of careers or future tertiary studies. All those courses are preparing somebody out there for something. But, for those of us who don't use them, those little bits of information we forget are building upon essential skills, like the ability to write and articulate properly, or how to manage numbers, or even just how to plan. One can't just disregard all of that, can one?
Yeah I figured that out when I was 14.
I don't care what you say, I will never apply parabolas to real life. I will never need to know what Shakespeare wrote.
They need to focus more on getting us to want to expand in our knowledge rather than just teach us useless shit.
I don't care what you say, I will never apply parabolas to real life. I will never need to know what Shakespeare wrote.
They need to focus more on getting us to want to expand in our knowledge rather than just teach us useless shit.
I lol'd. So much. I'm going to use that expression from now on.dastardly said:
Ok, I will say that in class there is almost no way to be "disrespectful" without creating a distraction. Because of that, actions that qualify as disrespectful should be treated as disruptive. I still hold that it's redundant to charge anyone with disrespect and disruption. But the way I'm thinking about it, it's all name games. There's something more important I want to talk about in relation to this topic, anyway.dastardly said:
What about outside of class? If I have a personal disagreement with a teacher, and I go to them after class, or during their break, or even at some school event, what's the disruption if I tell them off? Keep in mind, I don't think anyone should start hurling obscenities at people they disagree with, but it's an abuse of power to give the person an official punishment for the offense. Also, the disrespect need not be limited to loud, explicit litanies. Let me give another example: let's say Steve is walking down the hall and accidentally bumps into Mr. Pat. If Steve goes "Watch where you're fucking going." and keeps on, that's at least a detention. Clearly, Steve is being a dick, but isn't it unfair to not just call him a dick and go on (like I would have to if I were Mr. Pat), but instead level the full authority of his position onto him?
After all, wasn't it you saying earlier that it's the parent's responsibility to give their kids proper manners? If anyone's teaching them impulse control, it should be mom and dad. Or just mom. Actually, just whoever is in charge of them...
Ok, that's great, but you're forgetting that those same kids who swear and wear baggy clothes are society. We're trying to form an identity for ourselves, not adopt yours. It's not even a problem of free expression, just personal preference. Unless there is some clear, objective reason we should dress or act a certain way, then yes, telling us to do so is just trying to make us "conform" to an alien perception of "appropriateness." And I know what you're thinking: "Yeah, just try giving that speech at your next job interview." There's a problem with that though.dastardly said:
If I need to get a job, I'm going to put on my Sunday best and comb my hair alright. If I'm going hiking, I'll wear boots and pack some water. And if I go scuba diving, I'll bring my wet suit. But when I'm with my friends, I wear my shirt un-tucked and jeans with holes in them. Situation appropriateness. Just because I'm going to need to dress nice and talk straight to get a job doesn't mean I have to do it all the time just to get it right when the time comes, no more than I need to wear my wet suit at Publix so I'll know what I'm doing this summer at the beach. Since I don't need to interview so I can go to public school, and teachers aren't supposed to discriminate based on personal preference, why should I dress and act how they or the administrators or even the board members want? What am I trying to prove? To who?
If your concern is our ability to assimilate into society, then the only people we should be concerned with impressing are each other. Not you (you're not part of the "society" we want to be in -- until you are, at which point we'll think about changing), and not a prospective employer. The idea that there's a "proper" way to act and dress and speak for any society is as inconsistent with intuition as it is with the evidence; let us decide who we need to impress.
Try turn of the 20th century America. The Gilded Age was fraught with class dispute and proletariat indignation (we were just covering it). In fact, a lot of this had do to with the inability of (mostly immigrant) poor to get an education. Many taught only how to be ditch diggers or whatever, in the hopes that they would stay the hell out of big business and remain docile, easily manipulated, cheap labor. I'm pretty sure a lot of that influences the way we structure the modern educational system.dastardly said:
Oh, and seriously, da fuck is the deal with the people who said those things? My god... and I don't even have a god! Anyway...
The question is one of how to make people interested in their own education, while acknowledging to need for a working class and ensuring that everyone gets a fair shot at being whatever they want to be. Let's take a look at your suggestions:
I think most people agree that there are certain people who shouldn't have kids. Almost 100% of the time however, "certain people" doesn't mean them. Right now, we set the bar all the way down with people who eat their own excrement, and allow everyone else to decide if to have kids and how many. This is obviously stupid -- it's bad for the kids, the parents, and society as a whole.dastardly said:
But if someone's going to redraw the line, I'm sure as hell not doing it -- I don't want the petty, immature, violent underclass we're talking about restricting to come knocking on my door... because chances are they're not going to politely ask for an explanation.
I despise social darwinism, mostly because it misrepresents the biological theory it's based on, but also because it only makes sense when you're not in the "obsolete" caste. Also, it doesn't work like that. If you're advocating a removal of public welfare initiatives, then be prepared for that Gilded Age America I was talking about earlier. If we stop helping the less fortunate, they're not just going to go away. Like you said, sex is free.dastardly said:
I feel like you have more to say on this though. Elaborate?
More accessible birth control is always a good thing, and a lower birth rate would definitely help our over-crowding problem.dastardly said:
I'm on board. This would improve retention rates first of all, and I think it would make learning so much easier and more fun for the students.dastardly said:
This I have to agree with, unfortunately. This probably has a lot to do with the OP existing in the first place. We try so hard to give everyone the same potential, but it just brings everybody down. It's just very important that the distinction is limited to actual potential, and not some arbitrary discriminating factor, like household income. We also need to be sure that beforehand, everyone gets a fair shot to come out on top.dastardly said:
I feel like we should start a new thread; this one's getting really off topic. I think suggestion 1) would make for an interesting topic all by itself.
Outside class, if a student is coming to me with a concern and they start to pop off, I'll usually just warn them myself, "You need to be careful the tone you take with teachers, especially when they're giving you the opportunity to express a concern." If they continue, it's on them if they get a reprimand--I'll let them talk, not berate.summerof2010 said:
As to your hallway example, trust me, if Mr. Pat calls a student a dick, he'd be out the door THAT DAY if the student decided to say anything--either fired or suspended. I'd be fine with a detention for that, more likely I'd call home and let the parents know (which is the #1 thing we, as schools, do for problems). Usually what you see as a passer-by is the result of a situation that escalates as the STUDENT digs the hole deeper--what was a tiny bump and a muttered obscenity becomes a fight as the student gets continually louder and more argumentative.
It should be. But if they're not, what then?
Because school IS your job. It's really that simple, though you'll probably not much like it as an explanation. Yes, some socializing goes on at school, and it's an important PART of the experience, but it's not the POINT of the experience.dastardly said:
Now, I'm of a mind (as regard dress codes) that they should be based on simple criteria, but enforced strictly. If your outfit is not too revealing, doesn't carry obscene messages, and pants go where pants go, you're fine. But something to keep in mind is that, particularly in low socio-economic populations, should is a fashion show. Kids are so focused on who's wearing the NEW hot sneaker, and who's wearing last years model. Girls (from middle school on) are trying to look "cute" (which is just Hollywood's younger version of "sexy").
By limiting dress codes, we're trying to at least take SOME of the focus off of that. It can be an EXTREME problem in some places, usually resulting in uniforms, usually resulting in at least some increase in performance. And of course, less pressure on the kid who was already having to wear the same shirt 2 days a week because he doesn't have other clothes.
It's one of those situational things. In some schools, a dress code is a critical component of keeping things on track. In others, it's just a formality. To my mind, in the schools where it's critical, they need to follow it... and in schools where is just a formality, what's the big deal with just following it? What's so god-awful important about sagging your pants that you just can't live without it for the school day?
Oh, of course. The suggestions I made are only half sincere. I sincerely believe they would eventually achieve the desired result, but I'm also perfectly aware no one will ever let it happen. As soon as you try to get even the least bit selective about breeding, Godwin's Law comes into play, and you're accused of Hitler-like eugenics beliefs.
It would require a war to get it to happen, anyway. You're right, a percentage of the "no breed" class would revolt and have to be put down in armed conflict. Of course, it's possible that the very act of being able to organize and stand up for themselves would demonstrate they are, in fact, capable of improving. But the majority of the folks we tell not to breed? I really think the problem is that they are already too lazy and misguided to really care anyway. The real problem is going to come from the "enlightened" folks that want to go to war on BEHALF of those who don't care enough to organize themselves.
I despise social darwinism, mostly because it misrepresents the biological theory it's based on, but also because it only makes sense when you're not in the "obsolete" caste. Also, it doesn't work like that. If you're advocating a removal of public welfare initiatives, then be prepared for that Gilded Age America I was talking about earlier. If we stop helping the less fortunate, they're not just going to go away. Like you said, sex is free.
I feel like you have more to say on this though. Elaborate?[/quote]
I fully recognize the fact that a starving person will turn to crime before simply starving. I recognize this "solution" is a dirty one, which is why I know it'll never happen until near-apocalyptic circumstances demand it. It's really just the simple matter that we have no natural predators, we can defeat most diseases, and we're finding more and more ways to cheat natural methods of population control.
As a result, we have no reason to improve as a species. It's okay for us to get dumber, because there's always a seatbelt or helmet shielding us from the consequences. I don't pay attention in school, I don't learn a damn thing, and then I have 20 kids... and what? Sure, I might live a crappy life, but I've still lived long enough to have 20 kids, who will each live long enough to have 20 kids, all proliferating many (if not all) of the same life choices I made.
Meanwhile, this guy over here works as a janitor, but he's a hell of a janitor. He takes good care of himself, takes pride in his work, and manages his money responsibly. As a result, he decides, at best, he'll have 1 or 2 kids, because that's what would be financially responsible, and he intends to take his job as a parent just as seriously as his career. Fast forward five or six generations, and the world has very few of him in comparison to Lazy McBreedFast above.
Now, if Lazy was on Welfare, and the welfare system said, "Stop having kids, stop doing drugs, and get a job," Lazy might say, "Or what?" Well... what if our welfare system said, "Your benefits aren't changing. If you have another kid, you're just going to have to make these benefits stretch further. Tough luck." instead of forking over more cash?
Kids would starve, yes. Eventually, Lazy would starve, too. Or be shot by the police during a foiled robbery. OR, the better ending, Lazy would realize that HE is responsible for making his life better, and he'd make changes to his behavior because no one is protecting him from the bad effects of his shit choices. Now we're talking.
See, the thing I hate about "social Darwinism" is that they try to follow the biological equivalent too closely. We, as humans, have the ability to evolve AS WE LIVE. We don't have to wait until the next generation--we can learn complex lessons on-the-fly. Lazy doesn't need to be "bred out," when he can instead learn to change his behavior. Animals have a limited capacity to do that, because they pretty much lack any and all metacognitive faculties.
The only aspect of social Darwinism I'm looking for is the sense of consequences--learn or starve. If they turn to crime, they get locked up or shot down. If they turn around, we're all the better for it. It just means we've got to be willing to separate "He's making his children starve," from "We're 'letting' his children starve."
NOTE: I realize, from personal family experience, that many people who are in poverty, etc., are not there through any fault of their own. Maybe the primary earner was hit by a meteorite, and he had a seven-figure job, and now the family is broke. Not the fault of anyone involved. I simply draw a line between "fault" and "responsibility." It's not your fault he died, but it's your responsibility to change things if you want them different. It's not about wanting them to accept blame, it's about wanting them to take charge of things going forward. The public at large should only be there to provide assistance and opportunity, instead of the current "Bad things happened to me, so I get free money for life" system.
Absolutely. This one I really believe to be effective AND possible.
We base it on grades. We re-vamp the school system and curriculum so that our methods of both instruction AND assessment more accurately reflect what a student understands, and we simply decide from there. It's not pretty, it's not perfect, but it's going to become necessary.
We can't just keep shoveling every kid into college like we do. We pour grant money into millions of kids to get them into school... where they promptly piss away the money and drop out after one year. Now we're a few thousand in the hole (per kid), and some other worthy soul didn't get the help he/she could have used.
It's a cultural problem. We train kids to think everyone should LOVE their jobs... and as narrow as our on-demand world allows kids' interests to be, this leads to the logical solution that everyone should work in something they think is "fun." No one thinks mopping is fun. No one thinks changing bedpans is fun. Do you think proctologists "love" what they do?
A job is a job. You get a job you can do, and you do it well, and you use that money to live. This would require a major cultural overall, to stop tying "life satisfaction" with "career choice." I don't expect it'll happen anytime soon.
I don't think we're stifling any real discussion with this, but I do think we've basically said all that can be said on the topic. If there are particular threads of discussion in here you'd like to move elsewhere, though, I'd be glad to!
No, I don't like that explanation. That's just a metaphor, and the relationship only goes so far. The object of a school is to give students knowledge and skills, the object of a business is to provide a product or service to someone else. In reality, students are much more like customers -- which makes sense since teaching is a service that is being provided to them when they attend school. The only rules that should exist are those that restrict actions that make it harder for other students to learn (oh, and those important for safety, but those are very few). So tearing up someone else's notes should against the rules, but tearing up your own should not. Similarly, unless is can be shown (and it can in many cases, but certainly not at my old school) that wearing obscenities on your shirt, or being allowed to choose what you wear at all prevents students from learning in some meaningful way, those things shouldn't be restricted.dastardly said:
And on the last bit; it's a matter of principle. Say I really want to wear my new shirt that blows in the wind when I walk, but I can't because I'd have to tuck it in and it's not the same effect. Yeah, it's not going to kill me, but there's no reason that it has to be the case. You realize that this is the equivalent of telling students they must fill their book bags with rocks before carrying them to school and justifying it by going, "it's only a few more pounds, you're not even going to get a back ache!" That's correct to say, but that doesn't mean the policy makes any more sense.
Alight, I can agree to that.dastardly said:
Yes, and I think we need to change the way we assess them especially.dastardly said:
Eh, I think we've said what there is to say about most of this. I still disagree with you to some degree about the disciplinary system, but that may have a lot to do with the relative lack of focus in that part of the discussion, and the inconsistency between schools at the national level. I'm determined that a good handful of policies at my school were excessive and silly, but many of those same policies may be effective elsewhere.dastardly said:
Otherwise, it's been a good discussion there dastardly.
Most things you learn in school don't apply to life after school. The most important things you learn are how to interact in society and how to learn. Math, social studies, science, etc. really just help you to get an idea of what things you like and what you want to be when you grow up. The only classes that really teach you facts you may need to know, are electives, because they generally have something to do with what you are interested in and tie into your future profession/job much better. Most of what you actually use depends on your profession. For example, unless I am planning on becoming an architect of mathematician, do I really need to know trigonometry? No. This is why I oppose many mandatory and required teachings of certain specific subjects in high school. By this time in their lives, many teenagers don't know what they want to be, however, they do know, for the most part, what they do not want to be. And, someone majoring in something completely different than trigonometry, still gets that grade looked at by colleges, and could be the difference in whether or not you get accepted, regardless of whether or not you need it. In fact, one thing that people don't realize about our country, is that part of the reason that we are considered one of the stupidist countries in the world, is in fact because we are one of the only ones that is smart enough to realize that we don't need everything we learn, therefore, we don't care about it or try hard at it, because there is no point when we can use our brains for something much more usefull and for something that you may actually use.
