The Current Education System

[Neocortx]

Your first paragraph is related to the following in the bonus section of posts that I don't want to see because it makes it seem as if you didn't read the original post and completely ignores the topic of discussion (which I have posted for the second time in this post below):

You say you have a purpose with this thread. I say this thread has no purpose, because it doesn't utilize science, and therefor is absolutely worthless discussion. Time can be better spent, but well.

I understand where you're going with increasing motivation and the purported passion people have for science, but at the same time it seems a bit superfluous to me. People don't love science and you can see that on the ironic Facebook page "I Fucking Love Science". Read this article by Maddox about that page to see what I mean.

To make it clear.... just because a specific post from IFLS didn't get as many likes as one who is targeted at a brighter audience, means that people don't love science? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

Have you ever thought that maybe... JUST MAYBE, there are a lot of different people liking IFLS, some not scientists, but still with appreciation for what science does for us? As already said, the post on chemical management is simply something that is more interested for chemical engineers and alike, and it's logically that the IFLS audience does not consist 100% of people working in this field.

I love science. Almost my entire family does. We're full of academics... heck, one of my cousins even worked at CERN!

warm regards,
neocortx

 

[Neocortx]

Now, here's something I'm wondering: if the jungle native is hungry, wouldn't the decision to eat come from himself? I understand the decision of what to eat and how to procure it coming from his environment, but what about the decision to eat (In this case, I am not referring to the need to eat where someone is feeling hungry so they need sustenance, I'm talking about the decision to eat that many gorge-eaters and food enthusiasts make because they like the taste). Or are the body and the brain that trigger these responses considered part of the environment as well?

By the way, this is digressing from the main topic a bit.

The decision to eat comes from the experience of pleasure you had in the past when eating. I suspect that you never decided to eat shit... because it's save to assume that it doesn't taste too well.

warm regards,
neocortx

Note: If I sound offensive with what I write, I'm truly sorry. I have to confess that this is a topic I'm very emotional about, because I had many discussions in this field and most of the time got nothing but ad hominem. Obviously, those past experiences heavily influence me in the way I write... which often makes me kinda offensive.

Note2: What I said above about the past experience of pleasure is actually, strictly speaking, wrong. It's not just that, and there play a lot of things into it. Unfortunately, since our body can't be examined in a reductionistic way, we actually can never say what really caused something... rather, we can say "it's possibly a risk factor". lol

 

[Trepanated]

At the same time, there are people, who did not learn from the current education system, who have a problem with it. Remember the girl I mentioned who was home-schooled for most of her life? Well, when she finally attended a traditional school, she had a huge problem with it. She had always wanted to see what a traditional education was like, but she was disappointed because she felt that she had received a better education at home. This also applies to me, too. Many people believe that everything I know came from a traditional school (I like to consider myself autodidactic). While I can't say I didn't learn anything at a traditional school (you can learn something from anywhere, even if it's not what you were expecting to learn), I certainly didn't get the majority of my knowledge from traditional school (although much of what I know about people did come from the setting, and that has helped me out tremendously). Yet, even when I tell people this, they ignore it and just say "the school system has succeeded in creating a smart individual".

Your example of the home-schooled girl points to something I see as one of the inherent downsides of the education system.

Because the education system is a mass-delivery system it is designed to deliver the best results for the whole, rather than the individual. That's not some sinister plot, it is just how mass systems tend to be designed. It's the maximum gross impact in the most cost effective way.

But because of that, it is not tailored to each individual's needs, which means the further an individual sits away from the average, the less suited the system will be for them and the more likely it will fail them.

The reason things like home-schooling, private education and private tutoring produce better results, is that they are all more tailored to the individual's needs.

The solution of course, is to figure out a way to provide a quality education system to the masses, whilst tailoring it's delivery to suit each individual perfectly.

The problem is how to do it.

One thing is certain though - that solution is much more likely to be found by an educated person than an uneducated one.

 

[Trepanated]

You say you have a purpose with this thread. I say this thread has no purpose, because it doesn't utilize science, and therefor is absolutely worthless discussion. Time can be better spent, but well.

But there are many solutions to problems that are found without using science.

There are many inventions, discoveries, products, insights and all manner of things we all rely on that non-scientists are either fully responsible for or made a major contribution to.

Yes, science is critically important, but to say that this thread is worthless because it doesn't utilize science is a little dramatic

 

[jazzc]

Again, I did not say correlation is an indicator of causation.

I said correlation can be an indicator that two sets of data are interrelated

You keep telling me I am saying something I am not saying

What does that even mean? What's the value of pointing that 2 datasets being "interrelated" when there 's no indication that comes out of that "interrelation".

 

[jazzc]

What are the decisions, that supposedly come from you, actually based on?

External input after being processed by the internal evaluation system. There you go, case closed

 

[Trepanated]

What does that even mean? What's the value of pointing that 2 datasets being "interrelated" when there 's no indication that comes out of that "interrelation".

I think you are just trying to create an argument now.

You are trying to get me to say something I am, in fact, not saying, so that can tell me I am wrong.

How can I be wrong about something I am not saying.

Causation and correlation are different things - I agree with you, I have said the same thing many times on this very forum.

If you want me to say the opposite of what I think so you can tell me I am wrong, I can do that for you?

 

[jazzc]

Because the education system is a mass-delivery system it is designed to deliver the best results for the whole, rather than the individual. That's not some sinister plot, it is just how mass systems tend to be designed. It's the maximum gross impact in the most cost effective way.

Where I live, private universities are not allowed, homeschooling means jail and private schools have to teach the same curriculum the public schools do. Exactly how is that a design that minimizes cost and not a "sinister plot"?

 

[Zwielicht]

You say you have a purpose with this thread. I say this thread has no purpose, because it doesn't utilize science, and therefor is absolutely worthless discussion. Time can be better spent, but well.



To make it clear.... just because a specific post from IFLS didn't get as many likes as one who is targeted at a brighter audience, means that people don't love science? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

Have you ever thought that maybe... JUST MAYBE, there are a lot of different people liking IFLS, some not scientists, but still with appreciation for what science does for us? As already said, the post on chemical management is simply something that is more interested for chemical engineers and alike, and it's logically that the IFLS audience does not consist 100% of people working in this field.

I love science. Almost my entire family does. We're full of academics... heck, one of my cousins even worked at CERN!

warm regards,
neocortx

Yet here you are on this purposeless thread, wasting your time when you could be out learning about science! Some of us like discussion because it gives us a chance to learn about different view points. If I just sat around talking to myself, I would get nowhere as I'm only repeating what I already know. However, by listening to what someone else has to say, even if their view opposes mine, I can reinforce my arguments for my position and learn something new in the process. If this thread has absolutely no value to you, then the solution is simple:

(Do not post "I'm not going to run away from anything")​

Yes, I do believe there are people who liked IFLS who are not scientists. I also believe that many people on IFLS do not take an interest in science and that they are there because every time they see a picture, they think, "Whoa man, look at that picture! Whoa, I fucking love science for giving me this picture, brah". As an Internet marketer, you should know that people like the pictures on pages rather than the pages themselves. I can make a Facebook page called "I love auto-erotic asphyxation while wearing leather chaps" and as long as I have captivating pictures on there, I'm bound to get many likes.

I also never said anything about IFLS only being liked by scientists, I'm not sure where you got that from. You took the "people don't love science" too literally (and people think I take things to literally). When I say "all", "every", "nobody", or any other word dealing in absolutes, I do not mean it and it's to be treated as an exaggeration.

The decision to eat comes from the experience of pleasure you had in the past when eating. I suspect that you never decided to eat shit... because it's save to assume that it doesn't taste too well.

warm regards,
neocortx

Note: If I sound offensive with what I write, I'm truly sorry. I have to confess that this is a topic I'm very emotional about, because I had many discussions in this field and most of the time got nothing but ad hominem. Obviously, those past experiences heavily influence me in the way I write... which often makes me kinda offensive.

Note2: What I said above about the past experience of pleasure is actually, strictly speaking, wrong. It's not just that, and there play a lot of things into it. Unfortunately, since our body can't be examined in a reductionistic way, we actually can never say what really caused something... rather, we can say "it's possibly a risk factor". lol

Coprophagia in humans. I actually have pica (not the coprophagia part), which means I eat things that are considered inedible; things such as paper (I don't eat paper as much any more) and ice (yes, you're not supposed to eat ice). I don't eat these things because I liked the taste, I eat them because I fell "compelled" to (not in a Pewep way), like a craving.

Well then stop it. Your fervency for science on a thread about education just comes off as digressed pseudo-intellectual belligerence on the Internet. I'm not telling you to stop loving science, I'm just telling you to start a thread (or even your own forum) for science rather than posting it here.

 

[Trepanated]

Where I live, private universities are not allowed, homeschooling means jail and private schools have to teach the same curriculum the public schools do. Exactly how is that a design that minimizes cost and not a "sinister plot"?

I don't know where you live so I can't really comment.

But for clarification, I was referring to mass education systems in countries such as the UK and the US.

The same problems are inherent in other mass systems, not just education.

Healthcare for example. The NHS in the UK is widely considered to be the best in the world (opinions may differ), but it is designed to give the best care to the maximum number of people in the most cost-effective way (that's the plan at least).

But because of that, although there is a generally good level of care, there are individuals who the system fails, because the system cannot possibly provide a fully tailored solution to every individual's specific needs, at the same cost.

 

[Zwielicht]

Your example of the home-schooled girl points to something I see as one of the inherent downsides of the education system.

Because the education system is a mass-delivery system it is designed to deliver the best results for the whole, rather than the individual. That's not some sinister plot, it is just how mass systems tend to be designed. It's the maximum gross impact in the most cost effective way.

But because of that, it is not tailored to each individual's needs, which means the further an individual sits away from the average, the less suited the system will be for them and the more likely it will fail them.

The reason things like home-schooling, private education and private tutoring produce better results, is that they are all more tailored to the individual's needs.

The solution of course, is to figure out a way to provide a quality education system to the masses, whilst tailoring it's delivery to suit each individual perfectly.

The problem is how to do it.

One thing is certain though - that solution is much more likely to be found by an educated person than an uneducated one.

Great points, again! There are some teachers, as I mentioned in my original post, that do try their best to tailor their teaching style to the individuals of the classroom rather than just generally teaching them (my 5th grade teacher pulled this off successfully), but these teachers are unfortunately in the minority. I had always imagined that if there were more teachers who did what my 5th grade teacher had done, the education system would be much better.

 

[bva22]

They need to stop lowering standards. They also need to stop pushing kids through the system, which happens a lot. Better to push them through and get rid of them than to actually address failing students.

 

[Trepanated]

Great points, again! There are some teachers, as I mentioned in my original post, that do try their best to tailor their teaching style to the individuals of the classroom rather than just generally teaching them (my 5th grade teacher pulled this off successfully), but these teachers are unfortunately in the minority. I had always imagined that if there were more teachers who did what my 5th grade teacher had done, the education system would be much better.

I think you're right - if more teachers did that it would be much better and if all teachers did that it would be even better still.

Unfortunately, in mainstream education, the system is geared up to deliver at least a benchmark level of education to everyone and ensure everyone achieves to that standard at least.

A consequence of this is that there is a big focus on bringing 'failing' students up to the benchmark level - and to do that takes up a disproportionate amount of the resources.

And a consequence of that, is that there are less resources available to help the 'brightest' achieve more.

The end result tends to be a homogenisation of achievement - both the lowest achievers and the highest achievers are pulled towards the benchmark level.

Great for the lower achievers, but not so good for the higher achievers.

 

[jazzc]

I don't know where you live so I can't really comment.

But for clarification, I was referring to mass education systems in countries such as the UK and the US.

A old EU member and part of the Euro-zone. My point is that your education system isn't better in that regard because it has evolved by enlightenment (i.e. "yeah, that homeschooling idea is good, let's use that") but that it's better than what we have here because at some point in the past it was awesome-r to begin with.

The same problems are inherent in other mass systems, not just education.

Of course. But that's what the issue is. People start to realize that the mass produced version that's being available to them does not suit their needs. There's this thing called opportunity cost. Should I do A and not B or B and not A?

The thing that I find amusing is that we are talking about good/bad education without making clear what the criterion is. I believe in the context of the original thread, that is the opportunity cost for that guy. You see, 50 years ago, there was nothing better than going to (say) Law school. Why? Because you'd learn the ins and outs of the Law? No, because you'd live a wealthy life. I think we can agree that this isn't the same situation now. So I totally find the original OP's concern legit and funny the way old people react to similar concerns (not directed to you).

Now, in the context of this thread, let 's suppose the criterion is not the potential revenue but the life skills. Do I think that gov school is a good option. Hell no. Do I think that it is there as a lowest common denominator. Yes. Do I think that governments having a low schooling quality has ulterior motives? You bet.

 

[Trepanated]

A old EU member and part of the Euro-zone. My point is that your education system isn't better in that regard because it has evolved by enlightenment (i.e. "yeah, that homeschooling idea is good, let's use that") but that it's better than what we have here because at some point in the past it was awesome-r to begin with.

Of course. But that's what the issue is. People start to realize that the mass produced version that's being available to them does not suit their needs. There's this thing called opportunity cost. Should I do A and not B or B and not A?

The thing that I find amusing is that we are talking about good/bad education without making clear what the criterion is. I believe in the context of the original thread, that is the opportunity cost for that guy. You see, 50 years ago, there was nothing better than going to (say) Law school. Why? Because you'd learn the ins and outs of the Law? No, because you'd live a wealthy life. I think we can agree that this isn't the same situation now. So I totally find the original OP's concern legit and funny the way old people react to similar concerns (not directed to you).

Now, in the context of this thread, let 's suppose the criterion is not the potential revenue but the life skills. Do I think that gov school is a good option. Hell no. Do I think that it is there as a lowest common denominator. Yes. Do I think that governments having a low schooling quality has ulterior motives? You bet.

I totally agree that's the case in some (or even many) countries to differing degrees, but not all countries.

One thing educated people are more likely to do is see through and challenge dogma, so it makes sense that the more totalitarian a government is the more likely they will want to keep the people less educated (yes, I implied there that dogma is likely to be more prevalent the more totalitarian a state is ). North Korea would be an obvious example.

As far as good/bad education, I personally would say that good education is one that is perfectly tailored to a student's needs and abilities.

I use 'education' in the sense of the imparting of specific knowledge only.

 

[bva22]

I totally agree that's the case in some (or even many) countries to differing degrees, but not all countries.

As far as good/bad education, I personally would say that good education is one that is perfectly tailored to a student's needs and abilities.

Like Montessori teaching style? There's something to be said for learning things that you're not good at and/or aren't interested in. I totally get what you mean, focus on their strengths and develop those - but ignoring the rest seems like a recipe for disaster in the ignorance dept. and that's certainly not going to serve them well.

 

[fuzzy_corleone]