Does going to college defeat the purpose of home schooling?

[tiepolo]

I was wondering whether the idea of going to college defeats the purpose of home-schooling. It may be necessary for qualifications, but one is subjected to much more propaganda and just as much peer pressure at college and university compared to school, from what I recall. Are home learning courses and things like the Open University a preferable alternative? 

[Wesley]

People are not required to go to college, it is a choice for the student. Thus, colleges are infinitely better for students as the fact that the students have more choices and can leave if they want to, then the colleges actually need to provide good services to the students (in general).

 

There may be better alternatives for some people, but it is nearly impossible for one to sit on a mountain and delegate what the best path is for everyone (not that you are exactly arguing for that, but I exaggerated to illustrate a point).

 

My biggest question is:

 

What do you think the purpose of home schooling is?

[PatrickC]

Only if they end up doing a liberal arts degree.

[philschneider]

From my experience college did the complete opposite for me.  I know that everyone does not have the same experience, but I learned quite a lot about how high school was propaganda.  For one I was very lucky and had a philosophy teacher who did not just tell me about the history of philosophy.  It was a pretty rigorous course that consisted of mostly Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, and Nietzsche.  I took Socrates question everything mentality, and how do you know blank is true mentality very seriously.  I took it so seriously in fact that my friends started getting annoyed and started calling me Socrates for about 3 months.  Secondly I received a degree in history which opened my eyes to real history.  One of the best classes I ever took was a junior research paper on Genocide.  Every student had to pick a different genocide to write about and we all read our papers to each other at the end of class.  It was eye opening to say the least.  To sum it up college made me question everything I had previously learned to be true.  I would no longer believe statements without evidence.  And I strove, and still do, to not take historians interpretations as fact and to find the true history behind the popular interpretation.  College turned me into an atheist and a Libertarian by my 2nd year.  Sadly I do not think this is a typical outcome, but I could be wrong.

[tiepolo]

Fitstly, it annoys me that we assume the liberal arts belong to statists and Leftists. This sphere seems to have been abandoned to the Marxist pseduo-intellectual mafia without much of a fight. Why shouldn't a range of political outlooks be represented on every faculty?

 

As for the purpose of home schooling, I would think the purpose of it would be to spare children from being exposed to coercion and indoctrination, and forced association with other kids who might be bullies or other sorts of dangerous and harmful influences. 

[jacbot]

Fitstly, it annoys me that we assume the liberal arts belong to statists and Leftists. This sphere seems to have been abandoned to the Marxist pseduo-intellectual mafia without much of a fight. Why shouldn't a range of political outlooks be represented on every faculty?

 

As for the purpose of home schooling, I would think the purpose of it would be to spare children from being exposed to coercion and indoctrination, and forced association with other kids who might be bullies or other sorts of dangerous and harmful influences. 

 

 

Well i think most important question is to ask why liberal arts was such an easy victim for marxist professors and something like chemistry is not.

[tiepolo]

Because Cultural Marxism is all about emotional manipulation and using Western peoples' decency and doubt as a weapon against them (this is harder to apply to the hard sciences). However the question of why the forces of traditionalism were so easily displaced by the socialist subversives in Academia is certainly one to ponder. Leftists were never shy of backing up their touchy-feely protestations of 'liberalism' and 'tolerance' with force and intimidation. A reaction to the excesses of Fascist regimes in Europe is one possible answer, causing a collapse of confidence among the traditional right which was easily damned by supposed association. However the process of socialist infiltration was in place prior to the rise of fascism, and fascism was actually itself only a reaction to Marxist subversion. The Nazi regime in particular ended up actually being a gift to Marxists in the post-war period, who were able to accuse any anti-Marxist of being a fascist. Somehow the mass killings that Marxism was leading to long before there were any Fascists to worry about was kept from popular consciousness. 

[jacbot]

Because Cultural Marxism is all about emotional manipulation and using Western peoples' decency and doubt as a weapon against them (this is harder to apply to the hard sciences). However the question of why the forces of traditionalism were so easily displaced by the socialist subversives in Academia is certainly one to ponder. Leftists were never shy of backing up their touchy-feely protestations of 'liberalism' and 'tolerance' with force and intimidation. A reaction to the excesses of Fascist regimes in Europe is one possible answer, causing a collapse of confidence among the traditional right which was easily damned by supposed association. However the process of socialist infiltration was in place prior to the rise of fascism, and fascism was actually itself only a reaction to Marxist subversion. The Nazi regime in particular ended up actually being a gift to Marxists in the post-war period, who were able to accuse any anti-Marxist of being a fascist. Somehow the mass killings that Marxism was leading to long before there were any Fascists to worry about was kept from popular consciousness. 

 

So in short, your argument,.,liberal arts is easily o subvert because lack of scientific rigor in these fields.

[tiepolo]

There is more room for spinning an interpretation in such fields as history and literature. 

[Brentb]

Because Cultural Marxism is all about emotional manipulation and using Western peoples' decency and doubt as a weapon against them (this is harder to apply to the hard sciences). However the question of why the forces of traditionalism were so easily displaced by the socialist subversives in Academia is certainly one to ponder. Leftists were never shy of backing up their touchy-feely protestations of 'liberalism' and 'tolerance' with force and intimidation. A reaction to the excesses of Fascist regimes in Europe is one possible answer, causing a collapse of confidence among the traditional right which was easily damned by supposed association. However the process of socialist infiltration was in place prior to the rise of fascism, and fascism was actually itself only a reaction to Marxist subversion. The Nazi regime in particular ended up actually being a gift to Marxists in the post-war period, who were able to accuse any anti-Marxist of being a fascist. Somehow the mass killings that Marxism was leading to long before there were any Fascists to worry about was kept from popular consciousness. 

 

Many statists, particularly socialist statists, have a disdain for the market. So the best and brightest among the socialists seek out positions outside of the market which means government positions or academia. People who support voluntarism are more likely to want a career in the market. 

 

Professors and teachers also spend a good deal of their time in the classroom, which is a microcosm of the state. They decide the rules within the borders of the classroom. They set the agenda that everyone will follow. They decide who succeeds and who fails. So from that experience, statism is the self-evident method for order and progress in a classroom which can be incorrectly extrapolated out into order and progress for society.