[ExI] Public education myths/was Re: Americans are poor drivers
painlord2k at libero.it
Mon Jul 13 23:05:20 UTC 2009
Dan ha scritto:
> --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:
> This also assumes that the streets, etc. are justly held by the
I try to keep thing simply, for the sake of clarity.
Giving back to the owners it relatively easy in the short time, but
after decades is as easy as make eggs using omelettes.
This, I suppose, it is the reason that make forgiveness so useful and
prized. If people continued, after decades and centuries to mind of any
and all wrongs they and their ancestors were subjected, there would not
be peace and collaboration, only conflict and war.
> I'm not as familiar with other nations, but in the US
I was referring to the rationale given to the UK people, and probably
near all people in the world, to support public compulsory education.
I agree that the rationale given could not be the real rationale.
Or, probably, many people acted for different rationales and someone
hijacked the process and their work.
>> Maybe, desocialize the children from their families and neighbours
>> and socialize them with a bunch of same age individuals is good,
>> maybe it is not.
> Some believe it tends to disrupt "natural" social orders. Note the
> model too: put lots of little children into a room with one authority
> who tells them what to do. This is social regimentation that seems
> best suited not for learning but for fostering obedience.
True. But only if the teacher have authority and is respected and feared.
Just now, in many schools of the western society, the teacher is without
authority and it is not respected by the pupils or their parents, nor
supported by his/her superior.
In this way, the pupils will not learn to obey to an higher authority;
they will learn that authority figures must not be respected and only
the bullies need to be respected and feared. They will learn that hard
work is not rewarded, that the authority (the teacher) is intimidated by
the bullies or their parents.
In a way this is understandable. People is no more required to work in
their live, they are entitled to welfare in their live. And authority
people must provide for them. So, there is no need to force them to
learn, even in a paternalistic setting. It is not useful they learn, as
if they learn, they will not be dependant on welfare and the political
class that dole it out.
Obviously, this will destroy the wealth of the nation in the not so long
period. But for the people in the Ivory towers and in the leading
position this is not important, as they believe that they will not be
>> It appear that the US and Europe, in many fields, are losing their
>> advantages in respect to East Asia. Maybe they are or were doing
>> something wrong.
> I think it might be a bit more complicated than the form of schooling
> in each country.
Schooling and education don't happen in a vacuum.
> I also think that having educational choices made at the national
> level is a way to guarantee failure. Yes, eventually, over decades,
> different nations might figure out this or that educational policy is
> bad, but this is similar to having, say, diet or technology choices
> made this way. Imagine had nation's -- meaning, really, the ruling
> classes of nations -- decide on the proper diet and not allowing
> people inside them to deviate. How quickly would the world settle on
> the best diet?
I don't know.
I only know the life expectations would fall rapidly.
And people would immediately find way to break the laws and, possibly,
break the lawmakers.
> A far better system is to allow individual people to make their
> dietary choices. Yes, some will make stupendously stupid choices,
> but most won't because they have a direct incentive to get it right.
> Also, by having individual freedom, people can self-correct -- rather
> than wait until the leaders change their minds or some sort of
> national consensus is reached.
More information about the extropy-chat