Societal change rant

[Greep]

Now before posting, keep in mind the forums rules: No real world politics or religion are to be discussed in this thread (I say this because changes in society can often be this. Some stuff in the first post might be very marginally political, but with enough arguing so is the smurfs)

Okay, so I've read today's xkcd comic about how useless school really is and went on to the forums where I read a link to this (http://www.spinninglobe.net/lesschool.htm) which describes rather well why modern school systems fail to serve society, and quite possibly cause some extreme problems like growing psychologocial disorders and enstrangement to our neighbors, and loss of childhood for little to no gain. And I wholeheartedly agree with this. Not that education is bad, but it is slowly becoming required to get a B.S. in BS to become even a freakin' waiter, and about 90% of the education for people whose jobs DO require intense education (scientists, etc) is totally worthless.

Then I began thinking, "okay, say I have this radical idea, which many may agree with but is openly shunned in society, how do I go about actually getting peopel to open up to this opinion?"

Some options people in society use to get their real, controversial ideas out include:

-Written works (books, webcomics (:D), etc)
-movies (Those artsy fartsy ones that get awards but nobody actually watches because their theatre is showing "Rocky 5,000")
-gossip(whoo man that weird guy ranting in the street had some weird ideas!)
-video games (who hasn't played at least 5 video games that didn't have political/religious/utopian undertones. Okay maybe the ones who never played rpgs)

etc.

Now there's a big problem with this. Firstly...

Popularity- Only a small portion of the public is going to actually see the media in which one wishes to express their ideas. E.g., I've never heard of the person who wrote the essay linked at the top until now, even though he's written several books and is a teacher of the year. Even the best movies and books will still only be read/seen by maybe 10% of the public.

Practicality-Many ideas for societal change do in fact have practical solutions. An example is in a book I read about problems of social inequality in the inner city vs suburban societys and it had a well thought out plan that will of course never be used (See "popularity" above). However, in media like the above 4 examples, the practical side to these solutions will never be revealed: You simply cannot quote statistics of real world problems and thought out detailed plans if you're battling Sephiroth or watching spiderman get beat up by a scientist with 8 appendages.

So what is effective? It would have to be something a majority of people do most days and be able to have the space to write what you want.

Specfically: (Instead of preaching during these, one could maybe offer an address to a web article or other free media source)
Writing an article in a major newspaper
Making an infomercial that's watched during a popular show (like, say, anti-drug infomercials or breast cancer awareness etc)

Anyways, that's all I can think of, and that's my rant.

[averagejoe]

From the title I thought you were going to rant about people throwing pennies in fountains or something similar.


Those artsy fartsy ones that get awards but nobody actually watches because their theatre is showing "Rocky 5,000"

To be fair, a lot of artsy fartsy films are pretty bad, and just as stupid as any hollywood flick that takes itself less seriously and depends on action and suspense instead of soapboxing. And a good portion of the ones that aren't are ruined by excessive pretentiousness.

Also, I find this idea of ultra focused practicality to be silly. There are things worth learning, and things worth being forced to learn, besides what you'll do in the job force. It's like people's hypothetical jobs are suddenly this all important thing, by which they define themselves and shun all else.

I think primary schools would be improved if they taught science. Then again, I'm very cynical on this subject.

[thubby]

big changes in society are excruciatingly rare. if you want to have an impact, learn as much as you can about your chosen subject, then just talk to people.
the internet, for all the article condemns it, is an excellent tool. you can find the people on the fence, or the curious, or what have you. educate them, then have them go and do the same. the only thing you need to avoid is over zealotry. being the crazy guy who only ever talks about his cause doesn't help.

[Greep]

well I really don't care enough about any specific change to do something like this, but I was seriously wondering if someone had the desire to effect real change for something he felt was necessary, is glossing it over with entertainment media the only practical way to get the idea out to many people?

For example, the above 2 examples I give are also not very great because it's like shoving an idea down people's throats. Like in the example, anti-drug infomercials and breast cancer awareness are examples of perhaps good societal change, but I'm not sure many people enjoy watching them (they're usually pretty corny, at least the anti-drug ones)

[Checkmate]

I agree with you on some points. School's are highly wasting time, at least here in the Netherlands. I'm learning Geagraphy, French, German and Dutch Literature at less than mediocre level, while I could hypothetically use my time to focus on things I really want to learn and could have been an expert at cellular biology by now.

[Greep]

Also, I find this idea of ultra focused practicality to be silly. There are things worth learning, and things worth being forced to learn, besides what you'll do in the job force. It's like people's hypothetical jobs are suddenly this all important thing, by which they define themselves and shun all else.

I think primary schools would be improved if they taught science. Then again, I'm very cynical on this subject.

It's not that I'm against learning more than what's required for your profession. I'm against being FORCED to learn more than what's required for one's profession in order to initially work for that profession.

[thubby]

I agree with you on some points. School's are highly wasting time, at least here in the Netherlands. I'm learning Geagraphy, French, German and Dutch Literature at less than mediocre level, while I could hypothetically use my time to focus on things I really want to learn and could have been an expert at cellular biology by now.

for every one of you there are 6 who are completely unmotivated, or who don't know what they want, IME.
not to say the system doesn't have problems, but the shear scope of what the educational system tries to do, and how well it does it still surprises me.

[bosssmiley]

Then I began thinking, "okay, say I have this radical idea, which many may agree with but is openly shunned in society, how do I go about actually getting people to open up to this opinion?"

Errr...the Internet. You know, that single greatest talking shop in the world. Get your ideas out there, mention them to people with similar ideas, see if the ideas develop an audience. If they don't make notes on why not, then go back and re-think the idea.

If the idea beat the test of critique then put it into practise. Proof of concept is usually pretty persuasive (certainly moreso than talk, which is cheap).

Very related: Paul Graham on how school is not the real world (http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html), the limitations of existing culture as impediment to new ideas (http://www.paulgraham.com/usa.html), and on taboo ideas (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html).
Rands on Holy S#!t Moments (http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2002/07/10/the_dark_underbelly_of_holy_****.html) (when you realise just how huge and transformative a certain thing will actually be).

Oh, and a cautionary tale: How Smart People Have Bad Ideas (http://www.paulgraham.com/bronze.html)

[potatocubed]

Things I learned in school (and university) that have helped me in later life:

Formal logic.
Buddhist philosophy.
Holiday German.
Holiday Italian.

That's it. That's what I have to show for 17 years in education and a small heap of debt. All my job (and other useful) skills? Self-taught or learned from my parents or friends. All my life skills? Self-taught, mainly by trial and error (and error... and error...).

I think that anything you learn in school, you learn outside of lessons. It's more about how you deal with social situations, bizarre and arbitrary restrictions on behaviour, and classroom politics. Now those are useful skills for the adult world.

[Telonius]

It's not that I'm against learning more than what's required for your profession. I'm against being FORCED to learn more than what's required for one's profession in order to initially work for that profession.

I have to disagree a little bit here. Right now I'm in lower management at a science journal, but my degree was in Foreign Service (which is about as close to a for-real BS in BS as you can get). The information I learned in my courses in "Australian Development," "Middle Eastern Civilzation," "Nationalism," and "Comparative Mythology" classes, has absolutely nothing to do with my current job function. However, the courses as a whole have been extremely useful to my job. The point of taking all of those random classes isn't the information you learn in them. It's learning how to learn in fields you know (and care) absolutely nothing about, putting that together, and using it to make a halfway decent decision on something that does affect you.

Example from my work. I don't know all that much about computers, or about finance, or about physical print production. And honestly, I'm really not that interested in learning general accounting practices, or how to set up and manage an in-house network, or how the machine that prints out the magazine works. But when I'm in on a managerial meeting with the heads of those other teams, I have to be able to quickly get what they're saying, and let that inform me in how I talk about my own team's needs.

[KnightDisciple]

It's not that I'm against learning more than what's required for your profession. I'm against being FORCED to learn more than what's required for one's profession in order to initially work for that profession.

What's required for a profession?
At first glance, you might say "directly related skills".
But how often can you learn those, really? In the tech industry (my experience), you only kind of get general skills. Every job has a whole dearth of unique skills and items you need to learn. So what's a key job skill? Flexibility. What's a good way to be flexible, mentally speaking? Learning multiple different subjects, from the hard sciences to the liberal arts.
It makes you a better-rounded person, able to interact with people outside your specific profession.
That's not to say there isn't merit in the idea of school reform, but reforming it to the point of "you learn your job, and nothing else!" doesn't seem, in the long run, a good idea.

[Greep]

What's required for a profession?
At first glance, you might say "directly related skills".
But how often can you learn those, really? In the tech industry (my experience), you only kind of get general skills. Every job has a whole dearth of unique skills and items you need to learn. So what's a key job skill? Flexibility. What's a good way to be flexible, mentally speaking? Learning multiple different subjects, from the hard sciences to the liberal arts.
It makes you a better-rounded person, able to interact with people outside your specific profession.
That's not to say there isn't merit in the idea of school reform, but reforming it to the point of "you learn your job, and nothing else!" doesn't seem, in the long run, a good idea.

That's very true! But by not being required to learn this, it allows thousands upon thousands of free time to be opened up where one might learn these things whenever one wants to.

To elaborate: The stuff I'm forced to learn, maybe 10% I will use for a job. Maybe another 10% will be useful randomly (total guess, but a high guess). That's still a huge mass of totally worthless stuff in school. What could you do with this spare time? Do things you like! Learn things you DO want to learn! E.g. I'm making a video game. I'm taking some totally crappy G.E. courses in college I will never use. I'd rather learn how to make that video game better and use the several hundred more freed open hours to make it.



I have to disagree a little bit here. Right now I'm in lower management at a science journal, but my degree was in Foreign Service (which is about as close to a for-real BS in BS as you can get). The information I learned in my courses in "Australian Development," "Middle Eastern Civilzation," "Nationalism," and "Comparative Mythology" classes, has absolutely nothing to do with my current job function. However, the courses as a whole have been extremely useful to my job. The point of taking all of those random classes isn't the information you learn in them. It's learning how to learn in fields you know (and care) absolutely nothing about, putting that together, and using it to make a halfway decent decision on something that does affect you.

Example from my work. I don't know all that much about computers, or about finance, or about physical print production. And honestly, I'm really not that interested in learning general accounting practices, or how to set up and manage an in-house network, or how the machine that prints out the magazine works. But when I'm in on a managerial meeting with the heads of those other teams, I have to be able to quickly get what they're saying, and let that inform me in how I talk about my own team's needs.

Well.. that kind of life lesson takes maybe a couple hours to learn, as opposed to several thousand that's wasted learning the pointless information.

[KnightDisciple]

The point is that your brain becomes used to a wider variety of information. You're able to adapt and learn more quickly to varied things, instead of being really good at making video games and...really good at making video games?
Seriously, some basic courses in language and literature will not kill you. Really, they'll make you a better person...if you don't go in saying "I hate this, and refuse to learn!" Not that you're explicitly doing that, but an attitude of "why do I need to know this?" doesn't help anything.

[Greep]

The point is that your brain becomes used to a wider variety of information. You're able to adapt and learn more quickly to varied things, instead of being really good at making video games and...really good at making video games?
Seriously, some basic courses in language and literature will not kill you. Really, they'll make you a better person...if you don't go in saying "I hate this, and refuse to learn!" Not that you're explicitly doing that, but an attitude of "why do I need to know this?" doesn't help anything.

Well I think it does ;) an attitude of "why do I need to know this" in enough people may change things so that my future children won't have to. Naturally, I have to accept that I need to take G.E. courses I have no interest in and some relevent career/interesting courses of which I may not use the majority of what is taught but still have to take.

And yeah I personally want to learn more about video games than how to write my 1000th essay ;) Other people may wish to learn something other than video games like how to sculpt or whatnot.

[KnightDisciple]

The attitude "Why do I need to know this?" is the bane of modern society. It's knowledge, man! Treasure it! Sheesh, you act like they're beating you, instead of giving you knowledge! :smallannoyed:

[Greep]

The attitude "Why do I need to know this?" is the bane of modern society. It's knowledge, man! Treasure it! Sheesh, you act like they're beating you, instead of giving you knowledge! :smallannoyed:

But not the type of knowledge I want! Anyways, I'm beating a dead horse here, so this line of discussion I'm done with hehe.

[thubby]

we already have a practical test for all this.
vocational high schools vs. general education high schools.

iirc, general ed students have done better.

[Greep]

hmmm that test is true (I'm not sure if your'e right about that guess, but I don't know either), but then there's also this:

:D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school)

Which is a good example of a system that works like I'm talking about: mild required learning + much optional learning

Of course, while wikipedia is generally accurate... that particular article looks extremely biased. I'll need to confirm the statistics they give. 80% graduation from college? Sounds fake to me.

[thubby]

hmmm that test is true (I'm not sure if your'e right about that guess, but I don't know either), but then there's also this:

:D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school)

Which is a good example of a system that works like I'm talking about: mild required learning + much optional learning

Of course, while wikipedia is generally accurate... that particular article looks extremely biased. I'll need to confirm the statistics they give. 80% graduation from college? Sounds fake to me.

honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all, if i understand their system properly, the school would only really attract someone who wanted to be educated, or had a greater desire to participate in their own education. that's the kind of people who graduate from college as it is.

[Don Julio Anejo]

The real reason we have to learn a lot of BS? So they have something to teach us in the 15-20 years we go to school. Why do we have to go to school for 15-20 years? Because although 90% of what they teach is useless, it's good for the economy, even if it's bad for us. We're out of the professional labour market, and at the same time we're working at dead-end jobs like waitering or bartending or whatnot. It both satisfies the demand for low-paid service workers and drives down unemployment in the professional job market.

Even though it's pretty bad and unfair, it's not really a single person's fault. That's just how it developed... For example, there's 50 unemployed people who want your position. 5 of them have a college degree while the others don't. Chances are, these 5 are going to be short-listed. The others - not so much.

Now, 10 years down the road you only have 20 people applying. All of them have a college degree The other ones still in college, getting theirs... Each applicant has an equal chance of getting the job... But if you don't have a college degree and you're applying, chances are you're going to be automatically not even considered, even if you are a much better worker.

Because in the eyes of whomever is doing the hiring, having a degree somehow makes you smarter, more responsible, a better worker, etc.

It happened a while ago with high school degrees. Then with Bachelors' degrees. Now that everyone has a B.S. in BS, a lot of jobs are starting to require having a Master's.... Chances are in another 50 years they won't even let you sell cheeseburgers without a PhD.

[adanedhel9]

Where did I learn to write documentation that other people can understand? Or read crappy documentation and figure out what it's supposed to mean? When did I learn how to work within the rules of language - when I learned English grammar is primary school, when I learned Spanish grammar in secondary, or when I learned computer grammars in post-secondary? Where did I learn how to make educated guesses concerning a black box's inner workings? Or design an easy-to-use user interface?

Many of the skills I use day-to-day (in both my work life and elsewhere) I cannot trace to a particular class, or even a particular subject. But, had I not had 12 years of generalized education before focusing on my chosen profession (and even then "focus" meant 1/3 of my class load), I doubt that I could even perform my job function, let alone excell in it.

I strongly believe that the purpose of an education should not be knowledge (ie, the skills you need for your chosen profession) but rather the ability to gain and apply knowledge. Once you have that, any profession is open to you; it's just a matter of learning the skill set. And beyond your job, a general education does make one a more well-rounded, more interesting person (I know my games of D&D are better because of history and artsy classes I've taken; likewise I get more out of books, movies, and TV because of various literature courses).

So I will never understand the criticism that the education system teaches the wrong things. Of course, I should say that my entire education has been entirely in the hands of elitist private schools. So my experiences are possibly not representative of the average student's.

As an aside, anyone ever read "Profession" by Isaac Asimov? It's one of my favorite short stories and germaine to the topic.

[KnightDisciple]

@adanedhel9: Yeah, that's what I've been getting at.
As well, I think that the enforced discipline of earlier education helps us later in life. Frankly, few, if any, jobs will let you run wild and do whatever. As well they shouldn't: they're paying you to do a job.

@Sudbury school: No way, no how. A 5 year old (shoot, even a teenager) doesn't know what's best for him. That's what parents and teachers are for. This whole "let them take what classes they want" just reinforces a culture of entitlement. A culture that's wrong, and ultimately a fantasy. In the real world, you have to do things you don't like, and you have to suck it up. For instance, I work nights, over the weekends. I don't want to, but I do it because I need a job, and because it's not that bad, ultimately. Life goes on, by and large.
Furthermore, this whole "don't let the parents be involved" idea is wrongheaded. It's part of a parent's responsibility to help in the education of their child. Removing the ability of input undercuts that, and ultimately undercuts the authority of the parent in the eyes of the child. Which is bad.
It may sound neat, but this model of education won't go anywhere good, barring the occasional gifted and motivated child. It'll never work properly in general application. Not in the long run.

[Helanna]

This is one of the biggest reasons I hate high school so much. I go to school for eight hours a day, and for what? I am taking one course that interests me, a robotics/automation course. I am taking one course that I will actually need, Pre-Calculus. Everything else is just fluff. English especially - ever since fifth grade, we have learned exactly nothing new. We don't even get good literature - last year we had to read Things Fall Apart. Allow me to claim that this rivals the Eye of Argon in terms of bad literature.

It's not even that I have to take these courses. I wouldn't mind that so much, I do love to learn. It's mostly the homework. I'm already at your damn school eight hours a day, and now I have 1-2 hours of homework??? This is why I'm doing so poorly - I usually don't do the homework if there's too much of it. I prefer to finish it in school, because so long as I'm already forced to be there, it's the ideal time to do homework.

Oh, not to mention that I have to wake up at six in the morning. This usually means seven hours of sleep at most, usually more like six or five, on late nights. I just cannot get to sleep before midnight on most nights. Then I wake up and am absolutely miserable. Teenagers are well-known for a)being up really late, and b) needing lots of sleep. The solution to this is not "Let's start school before eight o'clock in the morning!" I think this is what I would change about school if I could.

[snoopy13a]

There's a couple of reasons why education is strongly pushed:

1) Education is a money making industry all to itself. For example, my sister is a 3rd grade education. In order for her to become a 3rd grade teacher she needed to get a master's degree. Yes, a master's degree is needed to teach 3rd grade. Another example is physical therapy. About twenty years ago, all one needed was a bachelor's. Right now, they have already required master's degrees for the same job and are making the transition towards requiring doctorates. This will essentially double the revenue coming in from people wanting to become physical therapists (and those people's debt load but who cares about that). If they cut back requirements for professions, colleges would lose money and people would lose their jobs. In the future, I wouldn't be surprised if educational requirements increase instead of decrease.

2) Educational degrees are used by employers to sort out candidates. For example, I'm sure that most employers do not believe a high school degree is anything special. However, if one drops out because "high school is stupid and a waste of time" then employers are going to assume that person is incredibly lazy (there's a perception that if one does their work, they'll pass high school). Therefore, they will pass on hiring that person. Likewise, people will college degrees are seen as more intelligent and/or more responsible than people with just high school degrees.

3) Education is designed to spur career interest, especially at the high school level. The reason people are forced to take english, history, math, science, etc classes in high school is to expose students to different subjects. Hopefully, this sparks career interests in some of them. For example, a student who likes physics in high school could decide that they want to become an engineer. If this student is not exposed to physics, they may never discover their interest at all.

[KnightDisciple]

...It's not even that I have to take these courses. I wouldn't mind that so much, I do love to learn. It's mostly the homework. I'm already at your damn school eight hours a day, and now I have 1-2 hours of homework??? This is why I'm doing so poorly - I usually don't do the homework if there's too much of it. I prefer to finish it in school, because so long as I'm already forced to be there, it's the ideal time to do homework.

Oh, not to mention that I have to wake up at six in the morning. This usually means seven hours of sleep at most, usually more like six or five, on late nights. I just cannot get to sleep before midnight on most nights. Then I wake up and am absolutely miserable. Teenagers are well-known for a)being up really late, and b) needing lots of sleep. The solution to this is not "Let's start school before eight o'clock in the morning!" I think this is what I would change about school if I could.

On the first item quoted here, I can certainly see the need for revision in subject matter, and review of what constitutes homework. Not the elimination of it, mind, but a hard look at it.
On the second...I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble rousing up much pity. I usually get 7-ish hours of sleep in the afternoon, wake up about 9pm, and then spend an hour driving to work. At night, in the dark. Currently, this is occuring during the winter, so there's snow, ice, rain, fog, etc.
Of course, I can somewhat sympathize with not functioning well early in the morning; I don't either. When I slept normal people hours, my peak was the afternoon, then the mid evening. But I'm afraid working nights has dried up most sympathy.
On the plus side, college will be better than either high school, or real life. So there is that. :smallwink:

[TRM]

This is one of the biggest reasons I hate high school so much. I go to school for eight hours a day, and for what? I am taking one course that interests me, a robotics/automation course. I am taking one course that I will actually need, Pre-Calculus. Everything else is just fluff. English especially - ever since fifth grade, we have learned exactly nothing new. We don't even get good literature - last year we had to read Things Fall Apart. Allow me to claim that this rivals the Eye of Argon in terms of bad literature.

The problem here is the quality of the education; high schools generally have bad classes. They have to teach everyone, even the stupid, unmotivated, and exceptionally untalented; and, because the teacher has to target the worst students in the class, all the pupils that aren't the worst are slowed down considerably.

I strongly believe that general education is important. While I am a fan of specialization in the work force, everyone is better off if there is a basic level of education on certain subjects—such as maths, languages, writing, etc... I'm sure that someone will come along and articulate it much better than I can, but my opinion is that to be well-educated and generally competent, you need a wide base.

Social change comes a little bit at a time. There is not going to be a major overhaul of the education systems anywhere in the near future; individuals and organizations will make small changes over a long time until eventually we realize that it already has happened.

[Dragonrider]

As I was unschooled through tenth grade, I'm the product of a completely radical educational system that seems like it worked. The philosophy behind unschooling is that "children learn as easily as they breathe". Until kids go to school, they LIKE learning.

Now, some of the people who practice this are pretty radical. For myself, my mom DID do structured math with me (three times a week for about half an hour). But I learned to read at five and as soon as that happened, I was basically allowed to learn whatever I wanted. Same with my brothers. The results of this were that my oldest brother as the age of four only asked for one thing for his birthday: a trip to Gettysburg (for those overseas folks, the site of a major battle of the American Civil War). He was so enthralled by history that his favorite books to be read aloud were adult biographies of Abraham Lincoln.

I dunno. I have pretty remarkable parents. But it worked for us.

A book about unschooling (http://books.google.com/books?hl=xx-pirate&id=bSOAh5hsOy0C&dq=john+holt&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=1mHeiMmdBX&sig=W5cMjKapwuTD1Wq5Z6xEnTrylYU&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPR12,M1)

[Raiser Blade]

As I was unschooled through tenth grade, I'm the product of a completely radical educational system that seems like it worked. The philosophy behind unschooling is that "children learn as easily as they breathe". Until kids go to school, they LIKE learning.

Now, some of the people who practice this are pretty radical. For myself, my mom DID do structured math with me (three times a week for about half an hour). But I learned to read at five and as soon as that happened, I was basically allowed to learn whatever I wanted. Same with my brothers. The results of this were that my oldest brother as the age of four only asked for one thing for his birthday: a trip to Gettysburg (for those overseas folks, the site of a major battle of the American Civil War). He was so enthralled by history that his favorite books to be read aloud were adult biographies of Abraham Lincoln.

I dunno. I have pretty remarkable parents. But it worked for us.

A book about unschooling (http://books.google.com/books?hl=xx-pirate&id=bSOAh5hsOy0C&dq=john+holt&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=1mHeiMmdBX&sig=W5cMjKapwuTD1Wq5Z6xEnTrylYU&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPR12,M1)

I think that Unschooling and homeschooling really need the kid to be motivated to learn to work well. Of course the same can be said for public/private school but in home studies it applies a lot more.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Dragonrider, you're lucky. I learned to read too when I was five (mostly thanks to my grandmother, who was a schoolteacher). And I ended up with my mom taking books I actually wanted to read (e.g. short stories, fairy tales, etc) and making me read kiddy books syllable by syllable.

[RandomNPC]

i'm all for unschooling. my mom got some schoolbooks at a garage sale or something when i was a kiddo, told me where she put them, and within a day i was all over them, because i knew the option was there. had she got them and told me i had to read them i still to this day wouldn't know what the inside of any of them looks like. of course my mom was sneaky like that.

of course i was sneaky too, i still like to look things up on a whim, but when i ask someone for a definition of a word they used, or to clarify something they mention in passing and they tell me to look it up because the work i do to find it will make me remember better, i generally tell them off.

EDIT:

also i was an early reader, i think after i learned my alphabet and how to form small words i jumped to a reading level five grades above my own. I remember english teachers telling the class to stop for a breath at commas and periods when reading out loud, and when i would they would say the next word. I remember telling a teacher "it's a four letter word, i'm just stopping for a breath, don't read for me" i was a stubborn one.

[snoopy13a]

I think homeschooling, unschooling, or what you call it can work well when a child is younger. Let's face it, being able to read at age four or five (which can be done by an attentive parent) essentially puts the child at the same reading level as a second grader. Most early childhood education is teaching the child how to read, write, add, and subtract.

The problem is when the material becomes more difficult. Most adults have a grasp of 5th or 6th grade material but when one starts to get into foreign languages, physics, chemistry, trigonmetry, etc things can get more complex. Now, if the parents have a foreign language and math/science background between them they could offer a complete high school education. However, this isn't the case for most parents.

[Dragonrider]

The problem is when the material becomes more difficult. Most adults have a grasp of 5th or 6th grade material but when one starts to get into foreign languages, physics, chemistry, trigonmetry, etc things can get more complex. Now, if the parents have a foreign language and math/science background between them they could offer a complete high school education. However, this isn't the case for most parents.

Well, both my parents have graduate degrees (mom anthropology and dad geography) so between them I was pretty well covered...like I said, we DID do structured math. My mom set out to prove to her parents that she didn't have to send her kids to school...hence, I was doing advanced math at a very young age. I think I was 9 when I started algebra?

Mom's math skills didn't reach past geometry, though, which is why after 10th grade I started taking community college classes. Yay for online!

....

Actually, I take that back, I started taking community college math in 9th grade. Expanded to other subjects in 11th.

But I don't think I would have been able to do it had I not learned to be totally self-motivated. I don't know whether I would have been if I'd gone to school or not...how much of it is personality and how much is education? Not sure.

[KnightDisciple]

I think homeschooling, unschooling, or what you call it can work well when a child is younger. Let's face it, being able to read at age four or five (which can be done by an attentive parent) essentially puts the child at the same reading level as a second grader. Most early childhood education is teaching the child how to read, write, add, and subtract.

The problem is when the material becomes more difficult. Most adults have a grasp of 5th or 6th grade material but when one starts to get into foreign languages, physics, chemistry, trigonmetry, etc things can get more complex. Now, if the parents have a foreign language and math/science background between them they could offer a complete high school education. However, this isn't the case for most parents.

Well, that, or if both parents have to work a full time job, just to make ends meet. Kind of hard to give good, regular schooling, be it home- or un-.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Actually looking back, probably the most important thing I learned in high school is how to play little status games. Can't really learn that homeschooled, nor can you pick friends out of (a few hundred to a few thousand) people, more likely just the people who live nearby or who do the same things you do like a sports team or a dance class or something.