Forced Education

[scameter]

I find it unfortunate that those who have the behavioral will and style to teach, that natural air about themselves to teach and who do it almost instinctually and who desire nothing more than to teach, are oftentimes forced into the trap that is current education: forced learning of those who do not truly wish to learn, proving a very brutal detrement to those who wish and have the natural talent to teach. Education should be through choice, not force. Or, I think people should be forced to school, but only about things pivotal to the labour world, nothing extra; and if one desires something extra, college should be available when the basic schooling is complete, and that should be where true teachers lie. I know this sounds similar to the actual educational world, but it is different; in the current system, people learn things, such as biology and algebra, that prove to have no real use in the job world and are taught until adulthood. And when one enters college, it should be a very cool, peaceful, tranquil environment that teaches patience and calm in the pursuit of learning, not forced rush in order to attain a degree to get more money; and (although this is even more far-fetched), after college there should exist places of continuing peace and tranquility for those who wish to further pursue the teaching and learning arts; oddly similar to a monastery, but with no specified spiritual or philosophical tennets other than to learn in a peaceful and patient environment for as long as is desired. This, to me, would be heaven. :)

[Smurf]

I was waiting for this discussion. :P

oddly similar to a monastery,
That is exactly! what I would have said about today's education system! :thumbsup:

Please don't let me get in the way of serious arguments

[Kether]

A freer education system, centred around respect for learning rather than succeeding in the labour market, would indeed be heaven. However, if non-vocational academic subjects were reserved only for the few who actually wanted to learn them, we might see social stratification between those who did take higher education and those who didn't. The system was put into place for most of the 20th century in Britain, and the standards in the vocational schools were very low.

[scameter]

I see what you mean Kether; unfortunately it is such. But, I think all people should be forced to take basic labour-education schooling, then they should be able to quit, or move on to the college arena. And in the basic school, none of the extra classes, such as alot of history, science, math, and English, shouldn't be taught; only enough to succeed to some degree in the labour world. And, there might should even be a continuing education college after basic, fulfilling the labour education with more detail. And in regards to the stratification you speak of, it already exists; maybe not in such quantity as it would, be already, those who actually care about learning, as well as teachers, are greatly seperate from those who only fulfill high school and move on to a job, or who go to college for a sort of continuing education or a technical school; except in the system I discuss, the stratification would be appropriate. It wouldn't be between the few who care (if they are indeed able enough to get a particular education to become differentiated) and those who only work as being the majority; it would be those who care about learning, and those who just don't, and just prefer to work. I'm sure some prejudice on both sides would arise, but no more than is now. Hopefully, in the new system, those of the academic world would lack arrogance, and would not see others as being less than they are.

That is unfortunate psyche, that he was so whimfully replaced, and much less by an administrative decision; in my system, that wouldn't happen. There wouldn't need to be replacements. Once you joined the college, you could come, go, stay, and/or leave as you choose, not forced to stay, and not to be replaced by someone teaching the same thing you would be teaching. If there were two music history teachers, both would be equally appreciated, not stratified between political position.

That is exactly! what I would have said about today's education system!

Please don't let me get in the way of serious arguments

lol Actually, I meant the monastery thing towards my version of the school system, but not of the Catholic monasteries; more along the details of Buddhist and Taoist monasteries, except with no inclination towards religious affiliation. And, if this were a serious argument, I would have issued it in the Formal Topics forum. :P

[Kether]

I agree that the education needs to be rescued from its current dreariness, but I still believe that academic, non-vocational subjects should be compulsory.
And in regards to the stratification you speak of, it already exists.
Lamentably so.

The academic freedom you describe would certainly be wonderful. I just don't think that those who 'just prefer to work' should be taught only the minimum requirements.

[scameter]

I agree; honestly, probably what is currently taught should continue to be taught, in order to give students a view of both the non-vocational and vocational side of life. I suppose the main focus of my statement is of the post-basic education step, particularly college.

[Kether]

I understand. And I suppose I agree.

[scameter]

:)

[scameter]

Thanks to my curiosity in the identity of your avatar Kether, I have recently begun research on scholasticism, something Peter Alberad greatly supported. And, oddly, I find it to be extremely interesting and complying to my method of thought and performance; however, I greatly dislike two parts of it: it's more recent restriction to theology and metaphysics, and not in it's original entire philosophical area of speciality, and it's reliance on Christianity, particularly Catholicism. Both of these faults limit it, but without them, I love it, to be frank; it is quite possibly the most intelligent and objective pursuit I have seen, and I believe it applies to this topic in that the scholastic schools of the past suit well with my idea for the prefered college, as being an objective, somewhat formal yet peaceful and patient approach to learning and the acquiring of knowledge via objective observation and contemplation, as well as philological analysis of auctors investigated by the scholar(s), and it's wide field of possible focuses to study. It is also one of the only things I have discovered to actually pursue an understanding of Christianity from objective logicism, and not mere belief, which is of course good, but often limiting unfortunately and dogmatic. Thank you Kether, I will most definitely study this further. :)

[Kether]

I concur. And Scameter, I'm glad you found my Avatar so inspiring, but I have to confess it was randomly chosen.

[scameter]

:P Did you know of scholasticism before now?

[Kether]

Vaguely, although I thought it referred to the pre-renaissance, theology-based schools of philosophy whose main interest was interpretation of the bible.

[Kether]

I do now. :lol:

[scameter]

Well it essentially was Kether, but their methods could and were in their early and high times be applied to any area of life, not just the Bible; unfortunately however, the scholastic method was limited by Christian doctrine and theological pursuit.

[Smurf]

umm ...

who was abelard?
:unsure:

[Kether]

Look on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelard

[scameter]

Yes that is a very explanative article; as is the entire site. I have found it most helpful, especially in my philosophical study. :)