What are your thoughts on school and university, is it just stealing your money?

Sex Pistols are Foucault gang!

The school system needs to be fundamentally reformed.
It is so fucking amazingly shit.

The solution is not
The solution is applied math.
The current math curriculum focuses way to heavy on solve for x, instead of use math to solve this real world problem.

Do you Americans just lump the humanities and social sciences under 'liberal arts' or something?

Yes essentially. Gender studies are lumped in the same category as History of the Maya, for example.

M8, you do realize that most basic real-world applicable math is based on finding stuff like that out, right? It's not just random equations you know, Algebra is very necessary for advanced understanding of Geometry and Statistics requires a grounding in Calculus.

The current math curriculum isn't problematic in its relevance to the real world, the problem lies in how to apply it to the real world, a divide created intentionally to prevent people of average intellect from wanting to do math or care about it, leading to them being close to lumpen-proles.

Schools under capitalism are like prisons, under socialism they are not.

My favorite Sex Pistols song is God Save the Queen.

What, you mean you actually have to pay to go to university?

I think school should be voluntary, not forced. That would easily solve the school shooter problem in the US. Those who hate school simply won't attend instead of one day coming back with guns and killing everyone.

Knowledge needs to be taught to be valued in and for itself. Nowadays, only highly priviledged kids are exposed to culture and taught and raised to find pleasure in learning.
For other kids, if school is their only contact with knowledge, it's under a dull, grey and lifeless form. School is made to make boring as uninteresting as possible while there are kids who have urges to learn like others have urges to fuck.
For underpriviledged kids, knowledge is merely a tool to access accessory social gratifications like a higher salary in the end or social recognition.
Then don't get me started on the diploma.

...

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (480x360, 259.61K)

Do you think that school makes you less prone to spookery? Really?

What are your thoughts on school and university,
good: Cuba
bad: usa

is it just stealing your money?
Yes in us, no in Cuba.

Dumb post

most kids don't even realize this. that's how bad it's gotten.

big brain post

it is though. at least in the microeconomic sense.

Public education in the US is dire. Bourgies are doing everything they can to destroy it even more. Abysmal teacher salaries, charter schools, voucher systems, ending collective bargaining, etc. That doesn't even get to the propaganda that is pushed. I just finished my student teaching and my mentor tried teaching Animal Farm with the whole spooky USSR/anti-communism perspective. While I'm applying for teaching positions, I have to sign an oath of loyalty and service to the United States government. When I get the opportunity, I'd like to move somewhere that actually respects education.

::DDDD is when reply is not related to neither op neither comment yiy are replying too.

also yes, socialism is mode of production aimed at fulfilling society needs, rather than pursuit of profit.

or you could de-classcuck several generations of American kids

Pol Pot nazbol muke puke GANG.

Educational institutions exist within the constraints of their politico-economic systems.

Its free here because of turd world imperialism social democratic countries do.

Algebra is necessary for advanced understanding of Geometry and Statistics requires a grounding in Calculus.

Always could seperaten the brainlets by them telling shit like "muh ill never need maths anyway"

general problem is, the more knowledge there is, the more you have to learn.

school basically prepares you to get wagefucked, merely giving you the Skills to fullfill a given Task, at best not even understanding why you are doing it for and why.

university, from my experience, ist the same sheet. ever had a basic economics course, where Infinite growth is axiomatic and nobody even bothers?

school and university aren't there to teach people to actually use their brain

No. Social reproduction is important. This includes education. Tuition and education administration are theft, the latter often from public funds in the case of primary schools and especially charter schools. People shouldn't have to pay for the privilege to have skills exploitable for profit. Many untenable business models and privatization schemes would never see the light of the day if paying for your own training didn't somehow become normalized. Beyond that, knowledge is a good in and of itself that promotes the health and well-being of both individual and society. Education will and must outlive capitalism.

What we need to do is restructure our math education around Godel. Your introduction should first be Arithmetics and Algebra. Then you should have an entire class dedicated to Axioms and Formal Logic. Then from there you can do other stuff like Calc and Geometry.

This should be the math curriculum

Attached: 1545009687314.png (1140x4777, 1.63M)

Yes, but not because I'm not learning anything.
It's just the amount of money I pay doesn't go toward anything of value.

100% reactionary, 10,000 years gulag

For instance, the infrastructure of the college is falling apart, but they just built a new church (catholic college) and the president of the college along with the administrators got raises.

Based

To elaborate on the shitpost. The anti-liberal arts narrative promotes bourgeois "end of history" ideology by pretending that things like philosophy and cultural studies are dead knowledge that can be easily learned on one's own by memorizing some dates from a book. All the correct ways to think have already been passed down to us by our benevolent silicon valley overlords and no further advances in thought can be made. Your only aspiration should be being a good wage-drone so you better pursue a degree that is most profitable for porkenstein. I'm not saying STEM is bad, of course, but the whole "u should go into STEM or u will flip burgers xD" narrative is so bourgeois it boggles my mind anyone on this board could seriously believe it in a non-shitposty way.

If anything the future socialist curriculum should have even MORE focus on liberal arts. Every prole should be given a classical education with ample amounts of logic, philosophy and literature as well as a language or three. That's how you get a populace that doesn't buy into reactionary bullshit or spawn beings like Elon Musk.

They give me 12k€ (40/60% goverment welfare and bank loans) to study economics and the university is free of charge. Rent is 236€/month, stundents get free private healthcare and lunch is only 2,70€ from university restaurant. Life is easy mode in a Nordic social democratic country.

General remarks:
- Education is currently in an existential crisis. The internet has made traditional modes of learning antiquated and impossible to apply effectively. Students no longer enter the classroom with the illusion that the teacher will impart special knowledge on them, but are fully aware that whatever knowledge the teacher has, it is also available elsewhere with presentation of superior quality. Everything the teacher instructs them in can be learned quicker, easier and more thoroughly online. This causes students to lose interest in school, and they are completely correct in this.
- To fix it we need to radically rethink how we practice education, and adapt it to a form fit for these changed conditions. Schools should turn the availability of knowledge on the internet into a pillar of their method.
- As such, the teacher should stop teaching, and only direct students to the superior materials that are available.
- This frees teachers to spend more time individually caring for each student's needs. Guaranteeing the social and psychological well being of studies becomes a central aspect of their job.
- We should create a single digital platform for learning that is openly accessible.
– This includes a wiki-like space where people can freely organize their own thoughts and put them into relation with those of others.
– It should also provide a central hub directing people to various other freely available resources.
– It should also house plenty of resources (videos, texts, exercises, interactive applications) by teachers employed for exactly this purpose.
– And most importantly, it should house a vibrant community of students, teachers, academics, and people engaged in life-long learning. This should embed students into a community of learning that will tie their studies up inseparably with their social experience, thereby naturally leading them to spend the majority of their time on it. Learning should become inseparable from their culture as such.
Elementary school:
- Teach kids basic skills like reading, writing, and arithmetic. This can be done through computer games to prevent bad first experiences.
- Students should be allowed to play freely for a large portion of the day. Schools should provide a wide range of facilities for this.
- Music and sports should be standard parts of every curriculum.
Secondary school:
- Main objective is to get students up to a point where they can study topics for themselves. This implies they should be able to…
(1.) orient themselves intellectually. For this purpose history, philosophy and natural science are vitally important.
(2.) critically engage with materials they find. Philosophy is vitally important.
(3.) put their thoughts into words both verbally and in written form. This should be a constant part of their studies. Besides consuming educational materials, students must be expected to create them themselves.
(4.) reach out to other people with similar interests, and engage in careful study.
(5.) engage in the study of highly specific subjects without constant external incentive. They must propel themselves in learning.
- Standardized testing is a must. There should be a wide range of standardized tests available to carefully track a student's progress in the traditional curriculum, in as far as this applies. For this purpose computers will be extremely helpful, since they enable us to generate endless questions of similar difficulty.
- Secondary school must be changed into a general activity center for young people. It should be a place they like to come, and be accessible to them in their free time. The people available must help them provide structure to their studies.
- A uniform schedule does help in ensuring proper structure in all students, but it should only be applied as long as students are unable to maintain this structure otherwise. If they show themselves capable of it, their schedule will be opened up however they want. This should be a powerful motivation for students to become independent.
Tertiary education:
- Trains for specific disciplines.
- Facilitates research.
- Creates educational materials for the masses.
- Also provides popular education.
- High school students should often interact with these institutions.

What do you think of this stuff? Would it work as a large-scale education system? Am I off in some departments?

I mean it more or less works together well with the idea of "future progress" of Lav Vygotsky (actually not sure if this is the correct english translation of his term)
Basically teachers are supposed to aid their students to overcome tasks that they can't do alone, not because they will understand those task then, but will more knowledgeable about them in the future when they do indeed come across such tasks.
Studying should be shifted from memorizing material to understanding, being able to reproduce and remake it, instead of just repeating the same textbook definitions.

This is why I partly disagree on the
Because on their own students can understand only so much, but with the help of others, they will create the cognitive structures needed for those same problems when they later in education become able enough to solve them on their own.
To illustrate it
The thing here is that if a student is being gently pushed to keep working on a problem with the help of a teacher he will be able to solve it alone (be it that problem or any similar problem) much earlier than a student that was left to mature naturally without any outside help.

Maybe I should have been a little more clear on this point.
My idea isn't to get rid of "teaching teachers" as such, but to move this task away from the teachers at school. Teachings should be separated into two different jobs:
- Personal counseling and evaluation of students. These are present at school.
- Providing educational materials (lecturing online, etc), answering questions, moderating online communities… These may work from home and be contacted by students through the internet, although having them visit schools and interact with students would be nice as well.

Next to that I think it's incredibly helpful for students to teach each other. If you need personal tutoring on some subject, you can get this from an older student who needs to refresh it. That's what I would prescribe for your example. Maybe we could also put students in contact in this way via the internet.

Ah yeah I understand what you mean.
Also indeed, students helping each other can and does work well in specific tasks and subjects.
Sometimes seeing the subject from the perspective of a fellow student can work much better than from the standpoint of a teacher.
I imagine that the competition between students would be on a lower scale though.
I used to have experience with a lot of students that withheld useful information just to get the edge above others
Also, what do you think about those that perform above/bellow average?

I guess I'm opposed to comparing students too much with each other. We should just look at what diploma a student is interested in and work towards that. How well they perform at any time during their schooling doesn't matter too much. There shouldn't be any shame in going back and relearning something you didn't get the first time.
Students who work below and above average should just be allowed to work at their own level. It's important though to not just interpret a below-average student as stupid. This is why I want to really stress the personal counseling function of teachers. They should be able to go in and look at what is keeping a student from succeeding. Is something wrong at home? Are they having psychological issues? Do they lack the motivation to work hard? Teachers are currently way too overworked to even begin addressing such points.
Competition can be fun, but it should be friendly competition. Have lots of essay writing contests, or math competitions with interesting problems. Maybe we can award extra points for projects that elevate other students as well.
If everything is connected digitally, we can put schools that perform well at competitions into contact with schools that do worse, and make a long term commitment to get the worse school up to their level.

The thing with students that are above/bellow average is that both sides "suffer" if they diverge too much from their peers.
But as you mentioned there's a number of factors that can be worked into the bellow average group.
Do you think it would be better if slower children (with no psychological issue and with the ability to catch up) be put in special groups with similar students, or kept among their peers and with additional aid?

There's no reason we can't work both into their schedules. It's good to study alongside a known set of peers, overseen by their teacher who is available for them. But it's also useful to work alongside students doing the same materials, to allow them to help each other out.

The internet allows us to physically have kids inside a classroom with known peers, all working on different levels, while interacting online with a group of students tackling the same material all over the world (maybe in something like a Google hangout). That's something I'd really like to see. It allows for much more personalized learning, without any additional effort.

I disagree. The real crisis is in the fact that everyone believes themself to be just as much of an expert on a topic as someone who has been doing research and publishing on it for 30 years after spending five minutes on wikipedia with their smartphone. You're completely missing the point of what expertise is and what teaching is. Not everyone can readily pick up concepts with perfect understanding from a wiki page and a few videos with no guidance whatsoever. It's still far, far less efficient to assume everyone is an autodidact than to have someone available for guidance, tutelage, and planning. Example: what good does wikipedia do you if you can't read? How do you know you need to learn calculus before you try to learn fluid mechanics if you don't know what either of those things are? How do you know PragerU isn't as legitimate as MIT if you don't have any basic education in which you learn to evaluate sources? Learning and teaching aren't just about imparting knowledge. They are also about teaching you the relative importance of what you should learn to be able to function in relation to other people, the existing body of knowledge, and mode of production.
So the internet?
So wikipedia?
So a search engine?
So the internet? Or a MOOC platform?
Your education plan sounds nearly identical to education as it is in many places, with the exception that you seem to think that postsecondary education should be job training, which is pure cancer.

I study at the university and sometimes I really feel that way. I came there to study but instead it goes really slow and sometimes I feel I could study more by myself at home without paying so much money for that and when it comes to writing some essays and other useless as for me stuff I don't waste my time for that but just use buyessay.org/ service to save my time

It's supposed to be a place when knowledge at large is both transmitted and created.
But this comes in conflict with what people nowaday expect of it: a place that helps you get a job. There comes the swindle: beside a few schools whose very purpose is to teaches specific trades, universities weren't build for that purpose, so a lot of people end up with degrees certifying they are knowledgeable to a point about some subjects but if this knowledge isn't deemed useful according to the current economic criteria, then you're fucked on the labor's market…

You bought into a capitalist narrative that's only looking to lower wages of IT sector workers into the dirt.

Ideally people should learn proper computer education, but programming is a specialized technical skill only a reduced section of the population would be interested in, let alone need.

I'm not saying that everyone should be programmer, but being able to write some basic conditional statement, loop and function should be skills tough in high school. Being able to solve some logarithmic equation might be cool, but useful only for people which are going to have math at university. Having elementary programming skill is going to help everyone who will try to use spreadsheet app in his life.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1000x667, 959.16K)

you have no idea how important computers will become after capitalist society collapses. shit like blockchain totally changes the third-party nature of contractual obligation, and Cockshott's political economy necessitates linear programming.

not to mention the substantially growing relevance of CNC machines in factory work

Blockchains are shit though.

This is all bullshit.
You're arguing a ridiculous strawman because you don't have any arguments. Acquiring proper familiarity with a subject is a long and strenuous process.
Which is why I make personal guidance the core function of teachers. Drop all the teaching bullshit. Turn them into counselors with the sole intent of keeping students on the track of learning. This was made absolutely explicit in my section on secondary education.
See my section on primary school.
We'll set up sources laying this out for students. Let's make a nice graph of all the prerequisites a student needs to start studying fluid mechanics.
By the way: No one at school ever explained to me what calculus is. I figured it out myself and learned it via MIT OCW.
>They are also about teaching you the relative importance of what you should learn to be able to function in relation to other people, the existing body of knowledge, and mode of production.
That's why I stressed the importance of standardized testing. There should be plenty of resources laying out how to work towards the skills required of a professional.
As it stands, the internet is terribly unorganized, and doesn't house the functionality an student needs to learn a subject. Next to that, our society doesn't actively employ large numbers of professionals to maintain a completely FOSS platform for students, and we don't have our students engage in a big online community of learning. There's a lot of good work being done, but it's nowhere near being centralized into the organized educational system I would like to see.
Not at all. Wikipedia has very strict rules on what edits are and aren't acceptable. There's a single article on every subject. My idea is to build a space where students can approach an idea from their own perspective. They can write their own article on fluid dynamics, integrating all the ideas and intuitions they find important in the subject. This will fuel a blossoming of novel approaches and interdisciplinary thinking that is necessary to keep the project of science going over the coming centuries.
Have you even read your own argument? A search engine doesn't provide students with the direction they need to explore a subject well. In contrast, a redacted list of resources can point students in the direction they need to gain a thorough understanding using all the brilliant work that is around.
MOOCs are garbage. They try to reestablish traditional ways of learning in an online setting. Doesn't work for shit. Not flexible enough. What we need is a grand MOOC-like community, where people can study whatever they want whenever they want. Scholars are available at all times to answer questions you have. It's kinda like stack exchange, but implemented in a platform that also houses a community of students, learning resources, study groups, exercises, all that stuff.
Plainly wrong. Education as it stands is generally executed by idiots who barely know the subject themselves, somehow perceiving themselves to be grand authorities on it. It makes use of ossified course structures that do not facilitate the diversity of approaches needed for the education of a creative and scientifically literate populace. Students do not receive anywhere near the personal attention they need to figure their personal shit out and succeed at school.
It shouldn't be job training as much as training for a field of expertise. It's the point at which you specialize and really get to know something, whether this is as a philosopher, author, artist, engineer, scientist, mathematician, it doesn't matter.
Next to that I said that they should be institutions accessible to the general populace interested in broadening their knowledge.

blockchain =/= dipcoin
common misconception

Weird that you keep responding to things you don't believe to be arguments.
I have a degree from a very good university, and I've also done plenty of OCW and MOOC content and even attended a Willy Wonka style peer learning program after I had a degree. In addition to my experience as a learner in all these contexts you're describing, I've taught in higher ed myself and worked as a tutor through the university system. In every single case, even a shitty classroom environment is better and more conducive to learning than the blind leading the blind in a experimental setting, whether it be digital or analog. Man pages never once were capable of replacing a STEM degree.
It was always this. Have you ever been in a classroom? It's easier to see where your students are at when you're in the same room gauging their reactions and giving them the opportunity to ask questions to you for clarification directly.
Hubris.
The problem with schooling is the profit motive, and that's it. There's no grand liberation or disruption happening from technology. A centralized digital learning platform is a garbage idea that sounds like you took a bong rip before you thought about the next big "uber but for schools" idea.
The problem with schooling isn't that it's failed to keep up with the times. The problem is that universal education has been under attack from the slimy tendrils of neoliberalization for decades. There has been a concerted effort by the rich to plunder the public school system from below and to transform it into a cost saving job training program for megacorps from above. This is most obviously seen from the rise of the business school, a joke if there ever was one, along with the exponential and meteoric rise in the ratio of education administrators to teachers. The problem isn't technological and it isn't a failure to adopt new technologies. The problem is a social one. It's a failure to protect a vital public resource for the exploitative claws of opportunistic capitalists. Your solution is, where you aren't literally describing modern university as it is, a radical restructuring of a vital public good with no real evidence or data to support why you believe Yahoo answers is going to do a better job than the guy who won the fields medal 10 years ago at educating society.