Bitcoin Forum

Don`t you think that collective learning is greatly overvalued?
It is believed that in this way children will be better socialized, will learn to live in society and be more communicative.
But do not forget that the school is often the strongest stress for the child. He can become an outcast, he can be offended by other children or even teachers. Needless to say, about what is going on in private boarding schools.
Also, group training has low efficiency, because it is not aimed individually at each child.
It seems to me that individual child education is much better? As it was in the old days: teachers came to the child's home and taught him. But the children knew several languages, and they were perfectly versed in geography and history. They did not have to go through stress and humiliation.
Don't you think it's worth returning these traditions?

I don`t quite agree with you.
Individual training is ideal for gaining knowledge, but ..
First, it is quite expensive and not everyone can afford it.
Secondly, the child really needs socialization, it's impossible to grow it like a flower in a greenhouse, which is protected from all external adversity.
The child must understand what life is, that it can be cruel, that there are difficulties. The child must learn to take the fight. He should be able to get out of the conflict, to defend himself, etc.
I think that in order not to break the psyche, parents should support the child and explain important things about relationships between people.
Nowadays, you need to be stress-resistant, you need to be competitive and able to fight. It is necessary to overcome difficulties in communicating with others.
Therefore, it seems to me that individual training no longer meets the requirements of modernity.

Common core is specifically designed to break the critical thinking skills of children and teach them to use collectivist thought.

The issue is not black-and-white stuff, I think. Schools have both positive and negative sides: even the concept of socialization is two-fold. It gives smaller scale insight about how adult society works, and at the same time a child may not be accepted by his school community for some reason. I`d say this very concept has more positive effect: it teaches one to resist stress and not to rely on the group`s opinion, which is also a quite valuable skill for future life.

Years ago, this was true. Since the internet, alot more resources are available that would allow those who can teach themselves to do so. 1-to-1 tuition is still expensive, of course, but self directed learning is not.



I disagree.

In schools, children are forced to let teachers resolve all but the smallest conflicts. That doesn't help kids learn how to solve their own conflicts, as they don't become familiar with the full costs of over-escalating arguments. As a result, too many kids grow into immature adults that are too willing to start anti-social conflicts with others, in the expectation that their future experiences will be the same as those in the past (i.e. teacher will come and deal with it). So, the school system does not socialize such characters, it does the opposite.

Any specific examples?  All I know about is common core science and I can tell you that it is the only thing that has brought critical thinking into public science education.   "Next generation science standards" are 100% designed around science practices which are all about critical thinking.

I imagine the same sort of thinking can be applied to common core standards in other disciplines.  All I can think of are the math examples that force students to do mental math instead of memorizing multiples and factors. 

Oh man. I am going to answer this question as if you have the capacity to understand basic psychology and how critical thinking works even thought you have repeatedly demonstrated you don't. At least this way some interested 3rd party can get use from it. Who knows, maybe you will bother to actually read some thing too.

Common core actively punishes critical thought and logic, and rewards substituting basic realities with a substituted reality as long as they can "explain how they got there". In short this is postmodernism as applied to math and other STEM fields. The right answer is subjective, it doesn't matter if it follows the rules of math, if you can find some way to justify it, it is reality.

This is just conditioning children to reject what they know to be reality in favor of a collectively decided reality, and that they need some one externally to tell them what truth is in stead of deducing that for themselves using logic. Now when the child, as an adult reaches a point of cognitive dissonance, they will be already conveniently pre-conditioned to dismiss it on the basis of any plausible explanation! How convenient!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilaSvC9PGKk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhdvRx_lmkg


BTW if you don't like my answer I don't give a shit. I don't care if you believe me or not. I showed you the door, you walk thru it. Or don't. I have no interest in debating psychology with some one who thinks Communism is great. You simply don't have the basic tools to understand how your own brain functions well enough to understand any of this, you know like logic, critical thought, or the understanding the The Olive Garden "Never Ending Soup Bowl" is not really never ending.

There isn't one. He doesn't even know what common core is as you can see plainly from his answer.

Not a single example plucked from either of these:

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/

Why do you have to insult people who disagree with you?  Why does a different world view than your indicate brain malfunction? Do you think the intellectual world should be an echo chamber?

I am a Scientist who teaches and also have a graduate certificate in educational psychology so if you have no interest in debate, then that is your loss.  Or maybe, you subscribe to some notion that all of academia is communist propaganda which enables you to completely dismiss my masters degree in science education and career as a science educator. 

As for the bolded section of the quote---- Traditional education never rewarded critical thought and was put in place by the government to mold people into factory machinery.  Modern education is becoming just the opposite.  In Science, we reward critical thinking and in doing so, the right answer is not always the emphasis. It is always about process and developing the student's abililty to "deduce the answer for themselves" as you have stated.  There are even exercises where students use dimensional analysis to derive equations for variables that do not exist.  Some see that and say "o lord they are teaching kids fictional science".  We are preparing students to solve problems that do not exist yet.

Common core involves broad sets of standards that can be taught in many ways.  Its far from some sort of monolithic test-based mandate.

The video you sent and its comment section reminded me of the rainbowland scene from "the campaign"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM9uFaGGVwk

Just because Mao's system led to what is commonly understood as the greatest educational effort in human history, doesn't mean every educational effort is setting up for a Maoist government rule.    This is like saying anyone who uses night vision is a nazi because the nazis developed night vision.  Talk about logic.

In England, the top schools are called "public schools". This is because they were the first schools to educate groups of children. Prior to that, education was obtained by private tutelage, and almost all of the population was uneducated. The monks used to teach potential priests to read and write, and they provided a letter reading and writing service for the peasants. The early public schools provided education for the minor nobility, potential recruits for the clergy, and rich merchants and land owners. Up until the 1970 England had a three tier system - state schools ( the free ones), grammar schools ( fee paying, but with scholarships), and public schools ( the expensive boarding schools). In 1976, the labour government formally abolished grammar schools stating that they were elitist. In doing so, they split education in two - the public school system for the rich elite. and the state schools for the rest of the population. The grammar schools had provided a bridge between the two extremes.

This is just another example of the major changes introduced by the Eton/Oxford elite to create their new world order. The sale of public assets, fractional reserve banking, the increase in debt slavery, the mass use of poisonous pharmaceuticals, and other contributions to their global eugenics plan are all things that need to be reversed or abolished as soon as possible.

If I remember correctly, "public schools" in the UK are privately ran, while "private schools" are publicly/government ran.

Tbh, "private schools" in America (normally faith based or non-government) that receive federal funding should be teaching the children at least bare minimums to receive the funding.

Public School SUCKS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH4MkHcG8n0

I believe that there should be a free primary education for all! It should be provided by the state, but how will the state provide it individually for each child? It is simply impossible. Therefore, the only option is group classroom training.

I think collective education is still very valuable, but the wrong things are being taught in the wrong ways. Kids should learn how to manage money, how to take calculated risks, and how to make smart investments so they aren't forced to become modern slaves.

We are social creatures and need to be around others from a young age to develop emotional intelligence and also cultivate lasting friendships, which help in many aspects of life (emotional health and also business deals later in life because you grow to trust them).

Traditional schooling environments should remain but the coursework should change to account for the current job market, which is becoming increasingly digital in nature.

I agree completely. Everything is always about balance in all things. Too much of any good thing can be destructive. You pointed out a couple of the primary issues with our educational systems. Schools spend little to no time on basic things like teaching children how their own brains work with critical thinking skills, logic, and debate and instead "teach" by operant conditioning which results in more of a parroting effect than actual thinking skills. The problem with this strategy of "teaching" is that even if you teach them the right thing to parrot, information changes and becomes outdated.

Another point you brought up was basic money management skills. It is really pathetic how little people know about how to manage their money let alone what money itself is. Furthermore in the US we spend an inordinate amount of time conditioning children in subjects that are somewhat arbitrary when most of the world takes advantage of this time to start training in specialized industrial skills. Not everyone is going to be a PhD or get a masters degree, most people won't, and those people need that bridge to get to the next step in their careers. Furthermore this is a huge workforce which could be taken advantage of to raise overall productivity as these kids learn on the job for credit.

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/7/RP/

I think a lot of people misunderstand the common core just due to their lack of knowledge of the standards.

Yes, it's more of a sophisticated form of babysitting than anything else. The course-work attempts to be as well-intentioned as possible, but the people behind educational institutions are usually old-school and from different eras, and don't have real experience in the fields they're talking about.

Making trade school seem like less of an option for "failures" would be a great strategy for job creation, less crime, and greater well-being in the US. A lot of the time they are even paid better than office jobs that require degrees (until we experience the wrath of AI).

I agree the primary purpose, other than conditioning, is probably just keeping kids off of the streets. The course work and entire educational model in the US is of Prussian origin however, which lends itself to focus on social conditioning.

I don't think it is appropriate to call people who end up in trade schools failures. Everyone wants to be a PhD or a scientist, but in reality MOST people will not be that. Making them feel like less of a human being because they are doing manual labor still critical and in demand to our society is not fair IMO. As you mentioned many of these individuals end up making way more than their academic counterparts because their skills are becoming more and more rare and in demand.

The ones who will be doctors and scientists will make their exceptional state known. I think this designation of these types of workers as "failures" is largely a symptom of the arrogance and desires of the teachers themselves so they can tell others they taught doctors and scientists. Teachers don't get excited when they tell each other they trained a highly skilled welder.

The discussion TECSHARE and Ladysmith are having is actually the same discussion that led to common core.  After the industrial revolution, American schools needed to function like factories to condition students to work in factories.  Schools don't aim to do that anymore.  There are still old teachers who are taking time to adjust but most of the reforms you guys are suggested have long been implemented.  I've visited over 300 schools as part of a accreditation committee and have never seen a school that hasn't already adopted "teaching how to think, not what to think". 


A bit of a conflict here.


When you say "most of the world", you have to keep in mind you are talking about nations that mostly have strong unions, universal healthcare, and free/cheap higher education.  If everyone is educated on how money works, they would demand more rights and our capitalist system would not survive. 

There is no conflict at all. There is a difference between social conditioning and learning specific industrial skills.


I know you really want to turn this into an argument for Common Core and Communism, but it is not. None of what you mentioned is required for any of this to happen. Furthermore your final statement is little more than a a very bold assumption.

Its not required but its a strong correlation if you look at the countries you've mentioned.  

Think about it though, education is one of the main drivers of class.   Education is the one thing, that for the most part, allows someone to move up in class.    How could you possibly sustain a distinct divide of financial classes without a distinct divide in financial education?

Can you name any countries with better education and as much financial inequality?

Actually, I find Socialists tend to be among the LEAST educated in matter of economics in general. If you are claiming some kind of positive correlation back up your claim with sources, don't just state it as an accepted fact.

There is a divide in education, period. This will always be the case to one degree or another because equality of outcome is impossible. Sure I can. How about Israel or South Korea?

Do you disagree with the statement that financial education is one of the most important factors for upward mobility? I assumed you would agree with that and am sorry for the incorrect assumption if you do not.  

Norway Denmark and Sweden have the highest financial literacy scores in the world.  Is that a coincidence or does it have something to do with them being social democracies and having the highest union membership rate in the world?
http://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Finlit_paper_16_F2_singles.pdf
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Labor/Trade-union-membership

If everyone is financially literate, there is no one to take advantage of through predatory financial practices which is big business.

I disagree with your premise that financial education is some how defined as separate from education in general. Education is usually a direct indicator of outcome. What you call "financial education" sounds likely to be little more than yet another argument for re-branded Socialism.

That is cute you used two culturally homogeneous nations with the populations of L.A. and New York respectively. The USA has about 350 million people in it. With scaling up the population comes problems with scaling up education on a national level. IMO localities should be in charge of their own educational standards to minimize this issue of scale.

You might be served by reading these articles:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/why-denmark-isnt-the-utopian-fantasy-it-is-made-out-to-be-a6720701.html

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/how-swedish-socialism-failed/

These examples are not the utopias you claim them to be.

This claim is false. Being born is usually a direct indicator of outcome. You're better off being born wealthy and be under-educated than being born poor and highly educated.

So what you are saying is rich people are better off? MINDBLOWING. It is also true education factors into outcome all other things being equal. I just wish we could all be born porn.