Does school prepare us for later life?

eet fuk wrote: »

Well, I was disinterested in plenty of things in school too, but I found that my curiosity was rekindled later in life. In that sense, I'm glad that I was exposed to such a large range of topics in my school years. It meant that I knew that this stuff is out there, just waiting to be learned.

I wanted to be a musician from when I was 14 until I was 20. So I went to college to study music. Turned out that I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would, and I preferred to keep it only as a hobby. Lucky for me, I studied maths, physics, economics, French so it was easy to re-assess my situation and start over. If I had only learned music and taxes and stuff that I thought would benefit me later in life when I was 15, I'd be stuck. Imagine having to learn something like algebra/French from scratch in your 20s - it can be done for sure, but it's a hell of a lot easier if you already have a decent grounding in it.

None of this actually contradicts any point I made: I'm all for variety. But saying that something you studied turned out to be essential for you isn't really debating my point.

Nor am I saying that problem-solving should be the ONLY thing taught in schools.

eet fuk wrote: »

Also, does anyone here actually think they would pay attention and be more interested in a class called 'Taxes for 20 year olds', or 'How to decide which politician to vote for' when they were in secondary school?

There ain't no way!

They teach (well, taught) taxes as part of business studies and how to run a business.

Some politics and basic stances and the difference between left and right would be an idea. It always struck me as odd that a lot of time is spent teaching the history of politics, but not the current of politics. Would kids find it interesting? Depends on who taught them and what they taught.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not sure what you're saying there AH?

Not much, except that I think the worry that's often expressed that the next generation will rely too much on Technology X is probably misplaced. Every generation has worried about that since neanderthal fathers grunted to neanderthal mothers about how their kids never knew what it was like before fire.

If we take that worry to its extreme, we have to teach kids how to survive the zombie apocalypse.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As an aside, I wouldn't write off current programming languages at all as irrelevant by the time your children are old enough to learn them. I still dabble in COBOL every so often while I'm teaching my son Java, even though he has ambitions to become a lift engineer! I don't understand it, but he could spend hours engrossed in watching YouTube videos all about elevators, escalators, lifts, etc, from manufacturer specs and intros, to documentaries about famous elevators! Bizarre, but he's happy! :pac:

It's not current languages I'd write off- I mean, when I was learning Java and asm I was still applying principles I'd learnt in Basic, and now I'm having a crack at Swift and finding a lot that's familiar there too. Languages evolve and new paradigms come in, but it's incremental development rather than revolutionary.

But technology seems to move faster and faster, and I wonder whether programming languages generally will be that relevant when my son (hopefully) graduates in about 2036. I suspect they might not be, except for the select few who need a deep understanding of AI.

eet fuk

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

None of this actually contradicts any point I made: I'm all for variety. But saying that something you studied turned out to be essential for you isn't really debating my point.

Nor am I saying that problem-solving should be the ONLY thing taught in schools.

I'm not trying to contradict you, or debate necessarily. Just a discussion!

I'm just not sure exactly what changes could be made that would make school more beneficial to later life. I think that teachers should be re-assessed every few years to make sure they are actually teaching instead of just reading from a book. Otherwise I believe that the current system is quite good given the resources available.

It's nearly impossible to find out whether or not learning maths (since that's the example we're working with) does actually make a difference to how you cope with later life - I think it's one of those intangible things that can't be measured. I just believe that it helps.

eet fuk wrote: »

I'm not trying to contradict you, or debate necessarily. Just a discussion!

I'm just not sure exactly what changes could be made that would make school more beneficial to later life. I think that teachers should be re-assessed every few years to make sure they are actually teaching instead of just reading from a book. Otherwise I believe that the current system is quite good given the resources available.

It's nearly impossible to find out whether or not learning maths (since that's the example we're working with) does actually make a difference to how you cope with later life - I think it's one of those intangible things that can't be measured. I just believe that it helps.

Thing is, unless you can provide examples (and not just specific professions) then it's hard to argue that it can.

Dughorm

eet fuk wrote: »

I think that teachers should be re-assessed every few years to make sure they are actually teaching instead of just reading from a book. Otherwise I believe that the current system is quite good given the resources available.

Bingo.

I think the education syllabi devised and the breadth and depth of subjects is reasonable here, but unfortunately have been significantly dumbed down in recent years.

Does this prepare students for real life? Well life isn't "dumbed down" so I don't see why school should be either. Students need to be challenged and actually *taught* - so many teachers could do with serious re-education on this front.

There is a cohort who simply want education to be replaced with training. That is ridiculous and does a complete disservice to the need for a well-rounded liberal education.

School shouldn't be about preparing students to spend their lives being a cog in the wheel of corporates.

eet fuk

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Thing is, unless you can provide examples (and not just specific professions) then it's hard to argue that it can.

Well yea... that's what I said! It's a immeasurable quantity!

I think we should not teach kids maths for a generation or two, and see how they get on. I'll meet you back here in 2056 and discuss the results!

the14thwarrior

when I first read the thread I mis read it as "does school prepare you for after life" and I was preparing a long replay about depends on the school, how old you are (for those born before 1970 it especially prepares you for the after life). I mean I knew the answers to those 12 questions about satan and hell and all the rest. If i'd died before I was 20 I was well prepared.

alas no, it was for "later lift" . hmm. I'm sure threre's a difference. i can't think right now. it was too long ago. i'm now preparing for the after life

Savvy student wrote: »

One of the biggest problems is students being spoon fed information which will never happen in real life. Most classes consist of copying notes from the board and learning them off by heart. Students lose the ability to think, form opinions and figure stuff out for themselves. Imagine an English class where instead of copying down the teacher's opinion/understanding of Yeat's poetry, students could discuss for themselves and form their own opinions. Thinking for yourself is an important skill which many schools neglect to teach.

this a 100%.

students learn something twenty times so they can write it out the 21st time in the exam.

one of the things they learn is that they can find the answers in a book rather than thinking themselves

eet fuk wrote: »

Well yea... that's what I said! It's a immeasurable quantity!

I think we should not teach kids maths for a generation or two, and see how they get on. I'll meet you back here in 2056 and discuss the results!

I'll assume you mean leaving cert maths?!

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Mister Vain

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

If a car accelerates from stationary at 2ms2, how fast will it be travelling after 100m

If a train leaves Dublin at 7:45 and arrives in Belfast at 10:50, what was the name of the driver? :P

God I used to hate those questions.

entropi wrote: »

You could integrate personal taxation into a business studies module at some point. It doesn't have to be labelled as a taxation-specific class, but could very well work inside an appropriate module.

Most people don't file tax returns anyway, and the rest hire accountants.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Not much, except that I think the worry that's often expressed that the next generation will rely too much on Technology X is probably misplaced. Every generation has worried about that since neanderthal fathers grunted to neanderthal mothers about how their kids never knew what it was like before fire.

If we take that worry to its extreme, we have to teach kids how to survive the zombie apocalypse.

It's not current languages I'd write off- I mean, when I was learning Java and asm I was still applying principles I'd learnt in Basic, and now I'm having a crack at Swift and finding a lot that's familiar there too. Languages evolve and new paradigms come in, but it's incremental development rather than revolutionary.

But technology seems to move faster and faster, and I wonder whether programming languages generally will be that relevant when my son (hopefully) graduates in about 2036. I suspect they might not be, except for the select few who need a deep understanding of AI.

The idea that these complex systems will be writable by everybody or by software itself or by graphical representations never pans out.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'll assume you mean leaving cert maths?!

He's saying if the whole world (why restrict to Ireland) stops teaching maths it will regress to the dark ages.

I don't really understand your arguments. Most of the stuff you denigrate as non practical is practical, what you are asking for is apparantly that something be practical for everybody or not taught.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Respect is not something that can be taught - it's earnt.

Having respect for the position is one thing - having respect for the person holding it is another. If the person holding it is not inspiring you or is condescending to you or fails to inspire a sense of trust or belief or confidence, then I don't see how one could automatically "respect" the person.

How are you not getting that teachers, by virtue of their earned qualifications, have earned the respect they are due? Your point earlier was that school doesn't teach children the value of respect for authority, but it appears the point of respect for authority was completely lost on you anyway. I couldn't care less that you have no respect for the person, I'm simply talking about the fact that in school, you learn to have respect for authority, and it stays with most people anyway throughout their life.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I fail to see the connection? I don't believe I ever mentioned technology or subjects for the sole purpose of jobs...?

The connection is there in the fact that you were suggesting Irish and learning King Lear are unnecessary. The Irish language is part of our heritage and culture. Now that might not matter to you personally, but it absolutely matters to quite a lot of people, and that's why it's compulsory with exemptions provided. Studying King Lear for two years? Can you really not appreciate the value of the works of one of the most influential and greatest writers of the English language?

Eugene Norman wrote: »

He's saying if the whole world (why restrict to Ireland) stops teaching maths it will regress to the dark ages.

I don't really understand your arguments. Most of the stuff you denigrate as non practical is practical, what you are asking for is apparantly that something be practical for everybody or not taught.

I know. That's the only way it makes sense, unless you're saying I said scrap maths from school altogether.

i wish they would teach psychology in schools. would make young adults understand themselves better

First, please argue points I make, not ones I did not make. See below.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How are you not getting that teachers, by virtue of their earned qualifications, have earned the respect they are due? Your point earlier was that school doesn't teach children the value of respect for authority, but it appears the point of respect for authority was completely lost on you anyway. I couldn't care less that you have no respect for the person, I'm simply talking about the fact that in school, you learn to have respect for authority, and it stays with most people anyway throughout their life.

Because qualifications means trained in a profession - it doesn't have any bearing on character. Just because someone is a qualified teacher, doesn't actually mean they're a GOOD teacher or should demand respect. To demand respect is arrogant.

I've never said "school doesn't teach children the value of respect for authority".

You can't LEARN resepct. Kids from a very young age understand the concept of respect. What they choose or choose not to respect is something that is up to them. There are plenty of qualifed and abusive teachers throughout the years.

The connection is there in the fact that you were suggesting Irish and learning King Lear are unnecessary. The Irish language is part of our heritage and culture. Now that might not matter to you personally, but it absolutely matters to quite a lot of people, and that's why it's compulsory with exemptions provided. Studying King Lear for two years? Can you really not appreciate the value of the works of one of the most influential and greatest writers of the English language?

Second argument I never made: "The connection is there in the fact that you were suggesting Irish and learning King Lear are unnecessary" - again no: I said that because some people see it as essential does not mean it is therefore essential.

I'm all for these subjects being on offer to people - but to state them as "preparing us for later life" - sorry, no.

I've no problem studying playwrights, but does it prepare you for later life? Also, again, I've never said scrap it: I'd be in favour of studying several plays for shorter periods of time instead of one play for two years.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The idea that these complex systems will be writable by everybody or by software itself or by graphical representations never pans out.

No technology ever panned out until one day it did and a whole bunch of people went out of business. Those people generally being the ones who kept saying "it'll never happen".

I'm not well up on the hard academic side of software engineering, but in the popular tech press there seems to be growing support for the idea that code will be mostly written by AI within our lifetimes, and that in the medium term, it'll be written by underpaid Indians. Maybe that's just sensationalist guff, but the sources pushing that line (e.g. Wired) also sometimes publish articles in my own area of science (biology/pharma) and I've found them to be pretty perceptive there.

I'm absolutely not rejecting the value of learning to code- just suggesting that its real value lies in what it teaches kids about logic, abstraction, complexity etc. I'll certainly be supplementing my kids education with coding, if their school doesn't cover it well.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No technology ever panned out until one day it did and a whole bunch of people went out of business. Those people generally being the ones who kept saying "it'll never happen".

I'm not well up on the hard academic side of software engineering, but in the popular tech press there seems to be growing support for the idea that code will be mostly written by AI within our lifetimes, and that in the medium term, it'll be written by underpaid Indians. Maybe that's just sensationalist guff, but the sources pushing that line (e.g. Wired) also sometimes publish articles in my own area of science (biology/pharma) and I've found them to be pretty perceptive there.

I'm absolutely not rejecting the value of learning to code- just suggesting that its real value lies in what it teaches kids about logic, abstraction, complexity etc. I'll certainly be supplementing my kids education with coding, if their school doesn't cover it well.

If code is ever written by an AI then the AI would effectively be a self replicating exponentially evolving system since it could just rewrite itself daily or hourly. And Indian outsourcing has been around for a while. If manufacturing goes to China and software to India what's the west going to actually do?

My guess is that that won't happen, that within a decade or so manufacturing will start to come back west and software outsourcing doesn't have the greatest rep.

I don't really think that code should be taught at school as I don't really see people being hired without degrees and they won't get the teachers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

pretty much. it is where the indoctrination begins

George Michael wrote: »

pretty much. it is where the indoctrination begins

Actually indoctrination is more likely via the media or societies superstructure. If schools controlled thought the gay marriage referendum wouldn't have passed.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Actually indoctrination is more likely via the media or societies superstructure. If schools controlled thought the gay marriage referendum wouldn't have passed.

So maybe their success rate at indoctrination is only about 40%- I'd prefer it to be 0 myself.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

If code is ever written by an AI then the AI would effectively be a self replicating exponentially evolving system since it could just rewrite itself daily or hourly.

I suppose that would depend on what bounds are placed on what it can write, but yes one scenario is that it would all go a bit Kurzweil.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

And Indian outsourcing has been around for a while. If manufacturing goes to China and software to India what's the west going to actually do?

My guess is that that won't happen, that within a decade or so manufacturing will start to come back west and software outsourcing doesn't have the greatest rep.

If the AI software writing thing doesn't happen, then yeah. But otherwise it might not come back west before it goes out of human hands entirely.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I don't really think that code should be taught at school as I don't really see people being hired without degrees and they won't get the teachers.

Eh? By that logic we shouldn't teach any science in schools. Can't be a biologist without a degree either, but if you don't start on the topic early you're at a major disadvantage when you start your degree.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Actually indoctrination is more likely via the media or societies superstructure. If schools controlled thought the gay marriage referendum wouldn't have passed.

i respectfully disagree. it has a huge bearing in how we mature as adults

George Michael wrote: »

i respectfully disagree. it has a huge bearing in how we mature as adults

Indeed. It's a whole way of thinking that has to be dismantled- it's very difficult to do. Being in the habit of appealing to the universe to help solve your problems, for example, is remarkably hard to break out of. I think shaking that off and taking full responsibility for your life outcomes is a true watershed moment for a person's development.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Actually indoctrination is more likely via the media or societies superstructure. If schools controlled thought the gay marriage referendum wouldn't have passed.

Education can very much be used to indoctrinate. It was an essential part of the Nazi regeime.

I'm not saying that this is the case in Ireland, but I've always wondered why subjects like history and religion are compulsory and strongly pushed, whereas philosophy is not.

The gay marriage referendum is a bit of a red herring in that the people who voted had more access to the media and were out of reach of education. You really need both to indoctrinate successfully. Media without education will not bring people to heel, because they'll have learnt how to question it before the are really expose to it.

The questions with indoctination though, are: who is trying to indoctrinate, and what doctrine are they trying to implant?