LovePrevails Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 "The exam board will also reduce the marks given for students' ability to critique and construct arguments, and more marks will be given for simply knowing the theories involved." As soon as I saw education reform I knew that is what we'd be getting - no thanks critical thinking! yes please remembering stuff and writing it out again in an exam - literally the least useful skill in 21st century where you can get access to the facts at any time ona smart phone. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/philosophy-a-level-syllabus-religious-education Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 That is of course, the whole point of state education. That don't want to create students with critical thinking skills, who will question the authority of their masters. They want people to accept what they are told, and obey without question. They want people to be dependant on the state because that way they will be unlikely to question it's legitimacy, and will make far better slaves. Great point on regurgitation being pretty much the least useful skill in the modern era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greekredemption Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 That is of course, the whole point of state education. That don't want to create students with critical thinking skills, who will question the authority of their masters. They want people to accept what they are told, and obey without question. They want people to be dependant on the state because that way they will be unlikely to question it's legitimacy, and will make far better slaves.Great point on regurgitation being pretty much the least useful skill in the modern era. I suspect they just want to manufacture higher grades. Let's not get carried away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I used to suspect that too. I'll reference something Stefan made to demonstrate why I believe what I do: when a program continues for a long period of time, producing consistent results, you know that it is achieving it's desired goals, otherwise it would be changed. If the goal was to produce well educated, enlightened, individuals, the course of public education would have been changed when it began producing the opposite. It has not, and I don't suspect it will anytime soon. Public education is working exactly the way it is supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greekredemption Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I used to suspect that too. I'll reference something Stefan made to demonstrate why I believe what I do: when a program continues for a long period of time, producing consistent results, you know that it is achieving it's desired goals, otherwise it would be changed. If the goal was to produce well educated, enlightened, individuals, the course of public education would have been changed when it began producing the opposite. It has not, and I don't suspect it will anytime soon.Public education is working exactly the way it is supposed to. I suppose the goal of public education is to do better than no education, and then beyond that politicians use the idea as a political football. All I'm saying is that perhaps the people who make decisions in the state school system are incompetent or stupid rather than malicious. In fact, the idea that they're controlling education in order to make people more obidient and indoctrinated sounds quite far beyond the talent available to the decision-makers. It'd require levels of coherence the state simply doesn't have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 the education system was engineered to stop the poor from out-competing the rich, as a matter of historical account. read John Taylor Gatto for the rundown - and look at what the people who funded it said about it “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.” ― Woodrow Wilson "We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way. " J D Rockefeller “In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding bands. The present education conventions fade from their minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops and on the farm.” — Rockefeller's General Education Board (1906), Board's Occasional Letter No. 1, written by Frederick T. Gates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I suppose the goal of public education What you're talking about is government schooling. "Public" hides the coercion and "education" is being dishonest. Your use of these words kind of makes the point you're trying to refute. All I'm saying is that perhaps the people who make decisions in the state school system are incompetent or stupid rather than malicious. If I hop into a car without knowing how to drive a car and I plow into a crowd, am I absolved of accountability if I call it incompetence? If you take on something that can harm others without doing the research on HOW to do that, it is malicious by way of negligence. In terms of schooling, you don't even need the research. If you watch the way children resist it and need to be threatened to quash the resistance is proof of the harm. In this case, not choosing to do the right thing is as malicious as choosing to do the wrong thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greekredemption Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 What you're talking about is government schooling. "Public" hides the coercion and "education" is being dishonest. Your use of these words kind of makes the point you're trying to refute. If I hop into a car without knowing how to drive a car and I plow into a crowd, am I absolved of accountability if I call it incompetence? If you take on something that can harm others without doing the research on HOW to do that, it is malicious by way of negligence. In terms of schooling, you don't even need the research. If you watch the way children resist it and need to be threatened to quash the resistance is proof of the harm. In this case, not choosing to do the right thing is as malicious as choosing to do the wrong thing. If you'd unplug yourself from the mains for 5 minutes, you'd see that you've missed the point I was making. Reading a couple of Molyneux's e-books doesn't a philosophy superstar make, so calm down for a bit. Regardless of the deontological rights and wrongs of state schooling, my point still stands: the decision makers are much more likely to be making stupid decisions than they are to be carefully maintaining a conspiracy to keep people at large subservient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 If you'd unplug yourself from the mains for 5 minutes I don't know what this means. calm down for a bit. I do know what this means. It means you've taken a clarification personally and think that accusing the clarifier of being upset will alter the truth value of his clarification or divert attention away from the initial point that needed clarification. the decision makers are much more likely to be making stupid decisions than they are to be carefully maintaining a conspiracy to keep people at large subservient. You said that already. To which I pointed out that it wouldn't be any better. Which means your distinction can only serve the purpose of not holding the responsible accountable. You don't have to accept my input, but you do have to acknowledge it if you wish to continue to make the same point. Repeating yourself won't make the words more accurate or my words less accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greekredemption Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 You're the one who mentioned accountability. I rather thought I was discussing motive. But honestly I don't really care; if you want to argue a point I didn't make, that's your business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Reading a couple of Molyneux's e-books doesn't a philosophy superstar make Forgot to point out that what this means is that you keep for yourself the option to disregard anything anybody says here. Which means nothing you do here can be considered a conversation. It's also a universality fail in that you're posting here that that which is posted here doesn't need to be taken into consideration. You're the one who mentioned accountability. I rather thought I was discussing motive. That accountability is present makes motive secondary. Also, what you said wasn't a consideration of motive, but a claim that it was NOT malicious. Which I pointed out that by way of negligence, it is malicious. honestly I don't really care You cared enough about protecting evil doers that you were willing to make an erroneous claim. You care enough about maintaining a self-image of infallibility that you're willing to resort to ad hominem and misrepresenting your initial claim to avoid facing that what you put forth was flawed. The irony is that you make my point for me by claiming not to care. You do not care about speaking the truth, so you put forth a falsehood that were people to buy it wholesale, it would lead to the continued crushing of countless wills of defenseless children. That the stakes are that high is why speaking accurately matters. Claiming not to care doesn't absolve you of being accountable for being complicit. Just as the design of education isn't about educating children, so people put forth a falsehood that leads to the exact opposite of their stated goal. Saying this isn't malicious is not accurate and wouldn't change things if it is accurate. The second irony is that I was never talking about YOU. I made a counterpoint to the position you put forth. You've reacted to it twice while not addressing it even once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted February 23, 2014 Author Share Posted February 23, 2014 You're the one who mentioned accountability. I rather thought I was discussing motive. When there is a large body of evidence on the way people learn, and that evidence is uncontroversial, and the schools are not only set up and run in a way that is alternative to the evidence, but actually antithetical to the evidence it's very hard to sustain the argument that incompetence is at play rather than wickedness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts