Schools`

[thbp]

Anyone here hate there school and not just the idea of school? i don't like our school to much but i like the concept of school

[hurstshifter]

Make the best with what you have, get good grades, and get into a good college. Life will be better then.

[thbp]

Well i know that, it's just how they run our school ugh could be ran better.

[Master Jake]

I don't like the idea of public school, just the idea of learning.

For one, independent learning is always superior to being spoon-fed bullshit.

Second, most teachers suck at teaching and need to go back to school themselves.

Third, many of the people in a public school don't actually want to learn anyway. They are just "stuck up" teenagers who just want to party, get high, and do nothing to improve their lives or the world. This being said, they pose negativity on the public schooling environment which hurts those who actually DO want to learn.

Fourth, public schooling (for the reasons above, and several others) have given the word "Education" a bad name. Very few are interested in something when it is deemed "Educational" because they think back to their life in school and how that was deemed "Educational." Of course, they likely hated school; and, sub-consciously associating it with the word "Education" causes them to hate whatever was deemed "Educational."

Fifth, learning should be a choice, not a requirement. If you want to be a dumbass and fail at life, you should have the choice. The government forces people to go to school, wasting time and money on many people who aren't going anywhere in life because of their poor decisions and ethics. This reflects back onto point 3 about "these type of people" posing a negative environment onto others. This time and money could be better spent on educating people who actually want to be educated.

Sixth, public schools--like the government--are ran by corrupt people with corrupt politics. You can actually have negative points applied to your school record (you know, the record that your colleges look at) by a corrupt asshole "figure of authority" in a public school for no reason whatsoever. You can be framed into a crime by someone hiding drugs in your locker in a moment of distress, or just to get rid of you. So many things can go wrong, and once you've pissed off someone with high importance to authorital figures (such as a class pet)--say goodbye to happiness.

This is why self-taught programmers will always reign. They travel onto the magical internet looking for tutorials (a clever word for a free class that you teach yourself) because they WANT to learn it, not because they have to. Self-motivation combined with independent learning deems success.

[RyanPridgeon]

School is brilliant place to learn. Even if they can't really teach programming - you still should be grateful for all the other stuff like maths which you learn there.

Also aside from the learning, it's a great place to meet friends.

[aamesxdavid]

For one, independent learning is always superior to being spoon-fed bullshit.

I doubt anyone would argue that, though I'm sure plenty would argue your implication that all schools spoon-feed said bullshit. Even if the majority do, it's no reason to assume that self-teaching is the only way to succeed.

Second, most teachers suck at teaching and need to go back to school themselves.

Completely seconded, and I see it as the failure of two things: 1) a (good) standardized assessment of what constitutes "good teaching", and 2) a reasonable way to enforce said standard.

Third, many of the people in a public school don't actually want to learn anyway.

I wouldn't quite go that far. Aside from a person with literally zero ambition, everyone wants to learn something. The real problem is that they don't want to learn everything they're taught, and the simple fact that no one likes to be forced to do something. There are books I'm sure I would have enjoyed - or enjoyed more - if I hadn't been assigned to read them. One thing that most people value over all is choice. It's more important to our subconscious than education. I'm sure that given enough time, the vast majority of kids today would eventually choose to get an education - we simply don't allow them that chance. So most children are forced to get an education before they are mature enough to appreciate it. It may simply be a lesser of two evils; it's not for me to say. I dare not say that most kids don't want to learn. What they really want is to choose to learn. I can't really blame them for that. Which brings me to your next two points.

Fourth, public schooling (for the reasons above, and several others) have given the word "Education" a bad name.

Fifth, learning should be a choice, not a requirement. If you want to be a dumbass and fail at life, you should have the choice. The government forces people to go to school, wasting time and money on many people who aren't going anywhere in life because of their poor decisions and ethics. This reflects back onto point 3 about "these type of people" posing a negative environment onto others. This time and money could be better spent on educating people who actually want to be educated.

Yes, it has been given a bad name because it's not a choice, so it's really just the second part. And I have to unfortunately disagree with you here. What you're saying is that children should be allowed to deny themselves an education, when to be blunt, they simply don't know any better. Ask a 4-year-old if they'd like to go to school, and of course the vast majority wouldn't. Why should they? They have no idea of the weight of this decision. And they never shall, if not educated enough to understand how much it matters. The only reason you look down on these people who "fail at life" is because you are educated. You know just how much these people are missing. Would you rest all of that on the decision of a child? At what age? Maybe when they're 10, they'll start to understand - which puts them about 5 years behind the average kid today. Think of all the "bullshit" you were "spoon-fed" by the age of 10. It makes a difference. This is the same reason that minors get charged differently with crimes than adults - they do not understand the significance of what they do.

You can actually have negative points applied to your school record (you know, the record that your colleges look at) by a corrupt asshole "figure of authority" in a public school for no reason whatsoever. You can be framed into a crime by someone hiding drugs in your locker in a moment of distress, or just to get rid of you. So many things can go wrong, and once you've pissed off someone with high importance to authorital figures (such as a class pet)--say goodbye to happiness.

Though it sounds like you're speaking from experience, this sounds a lot like the extreme, and not the norm. Any system of rules can be manipulated, and corrupt figures of authority will always be around - it's simply unavoidable. It's no reason to pick on schools in particular. The best you can do is speak up and present your case in a way that demands to be taken seriously. No alternate educational system will fix this.

This is why self-taught programmers will always reign. They travel onto the magical internet looking for tutorials (a clever word for a free class that you teach yourself) because they WANT to learn it, not because they have to. Self-motivation combined with independent learning deems success.

Even if you were able to prove that self-taught programmers (or members of any discipline for that matter) were generally more successful, it's always important to remember that correlation doesn't imply causation. And it certainly wouldn't do anything to back up the claim that a choosing your education makes you more successful unless you were able to prove that everyone in public schools does not want an education.

To summarize, I don't disagree with your observations, but I do think you're coming to an erroneous solution from them.

[thbp]

Master Jake i agree with you, all the way (though i know some teachers that can teach but teach "wrong" material)

School does have bad rep among "private" schools though i never been to a private school

[Master Jake]

Some of the things I said may have came out wrong or weren't presented in a fashionable manner.

I doubt anyone would argue that, though I'm sure plenty would argue your implication that all schools spoon-feed said bullshit. Even if the majority do, it's no reason to assume that self-teaching is the only way to succeed.

I think everyone's goal in life (or one of them at least) should be to eventually achieve a better understand of themselves and their environment. Through this understanding, teaching one's self can become a more elegant approach. Think about various problems you've solved throughout your life--both assisted and unassisted. Weren't you much happier, and didn't you feel more relieved and successful when you solved the problem yourself rather than through assistance? This kind of feeling boosts self-motivation which can really result in a more positive attitude and mood towards life in general. As a result, you always strive to succeed on your own through independence, because you want to feel that successful self-achieved feeling again. I'm not saying this is the only way to success, but I think that this method (and all of it's side effects) can be very positive and possibly the "better" method towards achieving any goal (including learning).

As you've stated below, there is no modern, standard assessment of "good teaching." This presents some problems. Some schools may spoon-feed their students; thus, their students learn nothing about themselves or the material. Pay close attention to me constantly referring to the "self." I feel that learning about oneself is the single most important type of knowledge that one can ascertain.

Just the opposite, some schools don't properly present or teach the material to the student. As you can see, both methods--spoon-feeding and poor presentation of material--both reap the same result... the student learning nothing.

Completely seconded, and I see it as the failure of two things: 1) a (good) standardized assessment of what constitutes "good teaching", and 2) a reasonable way to enforce said standard.

While I agree with certain standards, as they simplify things in most cases, I don't think that teaching outside of a public school should have a standard. Each individual is different and must have the material presented in a way that said individual can understand. This is how I generally teach topics that I understand to others. First I get to know them so that I may understand how they operate. Using this information, I organise the material and present it in the best way for them to learn. Generally, the material must be modified slightly for each individual; but, sometimes, a presentation in "layman terms" can reach out to most audiences.

In a public schooling, this standardisation of "layman" is perfectly acceptable to apply. Each public school teaches thousands of a students each day. There is so little time; and, as a result, a special presentation cannot be designed for each individual. This is where private schools come in handy. However, even private schools lack in many cases.

I wouldn't quite go that far. Aside from a person with literally zero ambition, everyone wants to learn something. The real problem is that they don't want to learn everything they're taught, and the simple fact that no one likes to be forced to do something. There are books I'm sure I would have enjoyed - or enjoyed more - if I hadn't been assigned to read them. One thing that most people value over all is choice. It's more important to our subconscious than education. I'm sure that given enough time, the vast majority of kids today would eventually choose to get an education - we simply don't allow them that chance. So most children are forced to get an education before they are mature enough to appreciate it. It may simply be a lesser of two evils; it's not for me to say. I dare not say that most kids don't want to learn. What they really want is to choose to learn. I can't really blame them for that. Which brings me to your next two points.

Perhaps I came out too aggressively, but I have seen my fair share of people with no drive or ambition whatsoever. I agree with your point about having the "choice."

Yes, it has been given a bad name because it's not a choice, so it's really just the second part. And I have to unfortunately disagree with you here. What you're saying is that children should be allowed to deny themselves an education, when to be blunt, they simply don't know any better. Ask a 4-year-old if they'd like to go to school, and of course the vast majority wouldn't. Why should they? They have no idea of the weight of this decision. And they never shall, if not educated enough to understand how much it matters. The only reason you look down on these people who "fail at life" is because you are educated. You know just how much these people are missing. Would you rest all of that on the decision of a child? At what age? Maybe when they're 10, they'll start to understand - which puts them about 5 years behind the average kid today. Think of all the "bullshit" you were "spoon-fed" by the age of 10. It makes a difference. This is the same reason that minors get charged differently with crimes than adults - they do not understand the significance of what they do.

This definitely came out wrong on my part. I still remain strong on my point about the government not deciding whether or not someone should learn. I still believe it should be the individual's choice; however, when the individual is too young to make a choice, it should be the parent's choice. A parent's duty of being a parent is to provide the absolute best environment and life for their child(ren) as possible. The problem with this is that so many parents today are having kids at like 16 with no financial support. Many parents these days are also careless.

Though it sounds like you're speaking from experience, this sounds a lot like the extreme, and not the norm. Any system of rules can be manipulated, and corrupt figures of authority will always be around - it's simply unavoidable. It's no reason to pick on schools in particular. The best you can do is speak up and present your case in a way that demands to be taken seriously. No alternate educational system will fix this.

I agree. So long as there is authority, corruption exists.
All of my points are from experience, though many of them are a thing of the past as I am longer attending a public school. I have attended all three schooling methods available (public, private, home). I have to say, home provides the greatest freedom and independence, though there still is plenty of stress to succeed.

Even if you were able to prove that self-taught programmers (or members of any discipline for that matter) were generally more successful, it's always important to remember that correlation doesn't imply causation. And it certainly wouldn't do anything to back up the claim that a choosing your education makes you more successful unless you were able to prove that everyone in public schools does not want an education.

To summarize, I don't disagree with your observations, but I do think you're coming to an erroneous solution from them.

I apologise for my blunt presentation. I get caught up with myself a lot when writing. I'm a very emotional person. I simply think that most programmers have a desire and will to learn that many other's do not, perhaps from the above points we both have presented.

-----

On top of the above points, I would like to present a new one. This doesn't necessarily apply to the education system alone.

I do not agree with aging limits. I don't think that one should be unable to experience a certain unalienable right or freedom based solely on their age. It should be based on their level of maturity, which I do believe can be measured.

-----

Master Jake i agree with you, all the way (though i know some teachers that can teach but teach "wrong" material)

School does have bad rep among "private" schools though i never been to a private school

You should give private (or home) schooling a try. You never know; you might like it.

[Milch]

I think it depends 100% on the teacher.
If a teacher sucks - the whole subject sucks.
My whole classe failed at a test because the teacher was unable to explain ANYTHING - GREAT!
Our teacher in programming is just awful. We should learn C in the second grade, but we learn somekind of C/C++.
Most of the people in my class are confused - and now they hate programming. <.<

Also I think, that most subjects dont build up on that what you've learned so far.
Example: physics
I passed a test with the most points possible - because I've learned one hour before with some dudes.
On the next day, I could't remember most of the answers anymore. But I passed the test so I didn't care.

[thbp]

we can't afford home schooling / or private schooling

[Milch]

Who can? ;D

[aamesxdavid]

I still remain strong on my point about the government not deciding whether or not someone should learn. I still believe it should be the individual's choice; however, when the individual is too young to make a choice, it should be the parent's choice. A parent's duty of being a parent is to provide the absolute best environment and life for their child(ren) as possible. The problem with this is that so many parents today are having kids at like 16 with no financial support. Many parents these days are also careless.

Well, you kind of hinted at the problem with your idea, but I think you underestimate the ineptitude of a lot of parents. Being a parent requires less qualifications than being a teacher - none. You're relying on the same people that can sit and pray over their dying child rather than bring them to a hospital for their completely curable illness. Add to that the arguably immature age that you're physically able to have children (not to mention the arguable lack of maturity you have if you actually do so at such an age), and you're left with no reason to assume that a parent can make a more mature decision than their child. I'm not saying that a forced education (even a small one) is ideal, but I think it's better than enabling people to ruin their own or their child's life at the whim of someone who may not be properly equipped to make such a decision. I mean, imagine your own parents saying they didn't want you in school, and then later on when it has been decided you're mature enough to make the decision, you want an education. How many years will you have been denied the ability to learn? What will you have missed out on, academically, socially, etc?

Again, with my lesser-of-two-evils comment - which is worse: a mostly-educated child who wouldn't have chosen it, or a completely uneducated child who would have chosen it if they were educated enough to understand the difference it would make? And I'm sorry, but what exactly is a kid going to do with no education? Before about 16, they can't even get the most menial jobs. Of course, homeschooling is an option, but that's allowed anyway - it's still an education. So you've got a kid who is not getting any education whatsoever, and can't get any sort of legal work - they are quite literally doing nothing, and are being robbed of learning skills that could allow them to progress in their life. I don't care if you're the parent or not - nobody should be allowed to do that to a child.

I do not agree with aging limits. I don't think that one should be unable to experience a certain unalienable right or freedom based solely on their age. It should be based on their level of maturity, which I do believe can be measured.

Age limits exist because age and maturity have a high correlation, and age can be measured to an absolute, undeniable standard. Even if you have your measurement of maturity, I guarantee you it will not be universally accepted. I doubt you'd even get a significant majority.

[Master Jake]

Well, you kind of hinted at the problem with your idea, but I think you underestimate the ineptitude of a lot of parents. Being a parent requires less qualifications than being a teacher - none. You're relying on the same people that can sit and pray over their dying child rather than bring them to a hospital for their completely curable illness. Add to that the arguably immature age that you're physically able to have children (not to mention the arguable lack of maturity you have if you actually do so at such an age), and you're left with no reason to assume that a parent can make a more mature decision than their child. I'm not saying that a forced education (even a small one) is ideal, but I think it's better than enabling people to ruin their own or their child's life at the whim of someone who may not be properly equipped to make such a decision. I mean, imagine your own parents saying they didn't want you in school, and then later on when it has been decided you're mature enough to make the decision, you want an education. How many years will you have been denied the ability to learn? What will you have missed out on, academically, socially, etc?

Again, with my lesser-of-two-evils comment - which is worse: a mostly-educated child who wouldn't have chosen it, or a completely uneducated child who would have chosen it if they were educated enough to understand the difference it would make? And I'm sorry, but what exactly is a kid going to do with no education? Before about 16, they can't even get the most menial jobs. Of course, homeschooling is an option, but that's allowed anyway - it's still an education. So you've got a kid who is not getting any education whatsoever, and can't get any sort of legal work - they are quite literally doing nothing, and are being robbed of learning skills that could allow them to progress in their life. I don't care if you're the parent or not - nobody should be allowed to do that to a child.

It was just a pseudo-idea. If you take several things that are unlikely to work and think about them a long time, you might find a way for them to work.

educated enough to understand the difference it would make

Nothing is 100% fool proof. Today, public schooling is forced until age 16. At that point, the student (with the approval of their parents [see the importance of parenting here]) can drop out. Sadly, several students choose this option each year. Though the amount of drop-outs has likely decreased in the past 30 years, it still exists. This proves a flaw in the idea "educated enough to understand". Anyone "educated enough to understand" would see the importance in education. Does this mean public schooling actually isn't educating to the level it should be? Likely. Even educated individuals make bad decisions based on their emotions, though. Perhaps this explains the motive of the drop-out, and not necessarily their education factor.

Age limits exist because age and maturity have a high correlation, and age can be measured to an absolute, undeniable standard. Even if you have your measurement of maturity, I guarantee you it will not be universally accepted. I doubt you'd even get a significant majority.

I never said I was the one to measure maturity. I just believe you can scientifically measure it based on several factors of personality, emotion, etc. Maturity can be conditioned at any age. I've seen 5 year olds that, based on their level of maturity and mentality, are quite superior to their adult counterparts. This is because they were properly conditioned at a young age. You see the transition occurring every day. 8, 9 year olds telling their parents about how smoking is going to kill them. Most of the parents are too weak and immature to make the decision to stop smoking; the decision that could very well affect the life of their child(ren). In this case, I would deem the child more mature than the parent. In this case, the child would be the one "old enough to buy cigarettes" and the parent not so much.

Cigarettes are like a test. You should never buy or smoke them, even if you have the choice. The child would be mature enough to not use the cigarettes. When you have reached an age where you are offered something that makes you feel good but has deathly consequences, if you deny it, you have reached a high level of maturity.

[aamesxdavid]

Nothing is 100% fool proof. Today, public schooling is forced until age 16. At that point, the student (with the approval of their parents [see the importance of parenting here]) can drop out. Sadly, several students choose this option each year. Though the amount of drop-outs has likely decreased in the past 30 years, it still exists. This proves a flaw in the idea "educated enough to understand". Anyone "educated enough to understand" would see the importance in education. Does this mean public schooling actually isn't educating to the level it should be? Likely. Even educated individuals make bad decisions based on their emotions, though. Perhaps this explains the motive of the drop-out, and not necessarily their education factor.

I never said that everyone educated enough to understand would continue going to school, just that many more would (see: lesser-of-two-evils argument). And I never said if was fool-proof - again, simply that it was better than allowing someone to ruin their own or someone else's future before they are able to make an educated decision about it. No, education is not the only factor - but it's an important one, and it's one that we can do something about. We can't make someone mature, and we can't make someone choose something. But we can require them to have an education before making a decision like that.

I never said I was the one to measure maturity. I just believe you can scientifically measure it based on several factors of personality, emotion, etc.
...
In this case, I would deem the child more mature than the parent. In this case, the child would be the one "old enough to buy cigarettes" and the parent not so much.

You must have quite a loose definition of "scientifically". First of all, in your example, the only people who would be allowed to buy cigarettes are the people who don't want them. And why? Because you deem them bad. You're enforcing your own subjective standard of good and bad, basing your subjective standard of maturity on it, and making (hypothetical) laws from it. Yes, cigarettes are bad for your health - so are a lot of things. Shall we ban fast food, alcohol, and everything else that isn't logical to do to your body? How about piercings and tattoos? They can lead to infections, and there's no logical reason to get them. People have the right to make bad decisions, as long as they don't hurt other people, when they are old enough to make decisions on their own. If we base it on maturity, which is based on your decisions, then someone can only be free to make a bad decision when they will choose not to. Not only is this nonsensical, but it's hypocritical - has every single decision you've ever made been for your own good, or someone else's? How would you have felt if someone took away your right to choose it simply because it wasn't a logical thing to do?

Secondly, even the factors you cite are not scientific. What scientific properties of one's emotions qualifies them as mature? I know you said that you are not the one to measure maturity, but you can't just say you believe it's possible and leave it at that. Your personality and emotions are not logical by nature - in fact, just the opposite. They are the things that cause you to do illogical things; they are the counter to the logical models science accepts. So how could something innately irrational be a determining factor in your level of maturity if you level of maturity is based off of making rational decisions?

You say science, but give opinion. You talk about emotions and personality, but present logic. That aside, after you claim to not have said you were the one to measure maturity, you go ahead and do so. And the ultimate irony is that your assumption that every decision you make boils down to mature or immature based on logical outcomes actually makes you sound less mature. Things aren't that simple, and they're far from a standard to take freedoms away from people. Not to mention, they basically completely abolishing anything you deem as immature. If the only people who are allowed to choose something will simply not do so, it's not long before that thing simply won't exist - then no one can choose it, and your standard of maturity has no basis any longer.

I follow science as far as it goes, but I know its limits. This is one of them.

[short]

Cigarettes are like a test. You should never buy or smoke them, even if you have the choice. The child would be mature enough to not use the cigarettes. When you have reached an age where you are offered something that makes you feel good but has deathly consequences, if you deny it, you have reached a high level of maturity.

It is obvious that you are still along ways from being what I would consider as mature. Simply denying cigarettes does not equate to being mature, in my opinion. See what I did there? I acknowledged that it was MY opinion. Honestly as I read everything you wrote it seemed highly opinionated. While standing behind what you believe in is mature, saying the choices you personally make are mature for everyone is fallacious. You shouldn't try and pass your opinions off as fact, because they are, indeed, opinions.