The myth that "everyone should go to college"

[Gibonius]

Originally Posted by dio

Guys let me just end this now so this banter can stop.

Human beings have the ability to naturally learn and teach themselves through the naturally developed instincts of curiosity. They do not need to be 'taught' so much as they simply need to be guided, and provided for, and maybe at specific times mentored on specific subjects when they ask.

Given this all you need to do is stick a kid in a social setting with access to all the resources he may need. Computers, internet, technology, art supplies, science supplies, whatever. With enough mentoring adults around to ask questions and maybe keep watch over certain machinery or things that could be dangerous without supervision of someone already trained, then if a kid expresses interest, they can learn that.

This is what needs to happened.

Why?

We are entering into a time now when there is TOO much information, and too much new information, and incredible value is to be had in completely novel discoveries and routes of thought that were previously not comprehended. This means it is not possible for an adult to even comprehend the necessary route to teach a kid what can be most relevant. All that is needed is resources provided, support available and the ability for natural human curiosity to flourish uninhibited.

Amen. Done. Get on it somehow.

There's a nugget of truth there. Our assembly line, "learn the material for the test and don't ask questions that aren't going to be covered" school system does way too much to stifle natural curiosity.

On the other hand, kids do need to be taught systematic ways to learn effectively and they need to learn intellectual discipline. Plus they gotta learn basic shit like "sometimes you need to do stuff you don't want to do."

Sometimes learning is tedious, but you gotta get through the repetition or boring stuff to get to the useful things.

[Gibonius]

Originally Posted by Vote McCain!

Yes I have considered that and I agree with you.... the not giving a fuck problem starts at home; if the parents dont give a fuck the child probably wont give a fuck either.

Somebody mentioned restricting children's TV earlier. Kids watch way too much TV because their parents watch too much TV (and use TV as a babysitter).

Parents need to set good examples for their kids. Read. Be inquisitive. Go exploring with your kids. Exercise. Play sports. Cook together.


I feel bad for kids who have parents that work intense but mindnumbing jobs. It's hard to parent like that if you work long hours at some soul searing and don't have much spare cash. Not a surprise those kids don't tend to do well.

[edplayer]

Originally Posted by dio

Guys let me just end this now so this banter can stop.

hay everybody!

u can stop hurting your brains now cause I no how all this stuff works

Originally Posted by dio

Human beings have the ability to naturally learn and teach themselves through the naturally developed instincts of curiosity. They do not need to be 'taught' so much as they simply need to be guided, and provided for, and maybe at specific times mentored on specific subjects when they ask.

Given this all you need to do is stick a kid in a social setting with access to all the resources he may need. Computers, internet, technology, art supplies, science supplies, whatever. With enough mentoring adults around to ask questions and maybe keep watch over certain machinery or things that could be dangerous without supervision of someone already trained, then if a kid expresses interest, they can learn that.

This is what needs to happened.

People can learn on their own and there may some situations where what you described could work more effectively than in traditional schools. But how much did you think about this before you posted? For example, I'm not decided yet on a major but it might be bioengineering. How efficient would the education be of someone in a well structured program (traditional schooling) vs. your internet, technology and "science supplies" method? I'm not saying that one couldn't learn with your method but the amount of time invested would be a lot longer than the traditional method.

[Gibonius]

Originally Posted by edplayer

People can learn on their own and there may some situations where what you described could work more effectively than in traditional schools. But how much did you think about this before you posted? For example, I'm not decided yet on a major but it might be bioengineering. How efficient would the education be of someone in a well structured program (traditional schooling) vs. your internet, technology and "science supplies" method? I'm not saying that one couldn't learn with your method but the amount of time invested would be a lot longer than the traditional method.

Just look at how ry approaches problems for your answer. You get a lot of intellectual masturbation, very little rigor, and no meaningful progress.

[dio]

Originally Posted by Gibonius

There's a nugget of truth there. Our assembly line, "learn the material for the test and don't ask questions that aren't going to be covered" school system does way too much to stifle natural curiosity.

On the other hand, kids do need to be taught systematic ways to learn effectively and they need to learn intellectual discipline. Plus they gotta learn basic shit like "sometimes you need to do stuff you don't want to do."

Sometimes learning is tedious, but you gotta get through the repetition or boring stuff to get to the useful things.

I don't think the way of currently teaching kids should in any way be removed entirely. At my core I am firm believing mentorship as the greatest form of education.

But the big problem is that, for a mentorship to work, the student must CHOOSE his mentor. They must want the mentor, they must want to learn from the mentor. Did give someone advice, direction, and aim, without them ever asking for it, is wrong, it's begging for it fall on unappreciative ears, minds that just by the nature of being forced under mentorship will be resilient to it.

Humans have a natural and innate desire to integrate into community, to take on their fathers roles, to be apart of whats really happening. In ancient tribal structures boys were not forced to learn to hunt, rather, it was the older hunters holding them back and restraining to not fuck things up because boys were far too gung ho about getting in on the hunt and being in on what the cool big boys are doing. (of course I have no statistical analysis on this, but just given the psychology of young boys, and how I was, this seems obvious to me)

Human beings naturally find a passion, and naturally orient themselves to absorbing and mastering that passion, they want to be involved, they want respect in their community.

Our current system is not conducive to this natural process.

It does not offer an open platform for natural curiosity and exploration. Then if by some radical chance someone young does manage to find their passion, they are told to make it secondary to standard curriculum. I think this is an atrocity.

[dio]

Originally Posted by edplayer

hay everybody!

u can stop hurting your brains now cause I no how all this stuff works






People can learn on their own and there may some situations where what you described could work more effectively than in traditional schools. But how much did you think about this before you posted? For example, I'm not decided yet on a major but it might be bioengineering. How efficient would the education be of someone in a well structured program (traditional schooling) vs. your internet, technology and "science supplies" method? I'm not saying that one couldn't learn with your method but the amount of time invested would be a lot longer than the traditional method.

Understand what I describe is really something more of a replace for K-12. I don't not think standard college structure should be abolished, but rather it should not be assumed it is ideal for everything.

For example, I think mathematics taught under standard college curriculum is the ideal way to do such a thing. I went to college specifically for math, because it was apparent to me they had figured out the absolute best way to teach math.

But what if you want to be some sort of creative? A designer? Writer? Computer graphics artist? What if you want to be a programmer (I do not think computer science is best taught how math is taught) These things need different structures and philosphies behind them.

I think education for younger people needs to be completely open ended and much more free. Curiosity, and natural instinct to find passion needs to be cherished above all else. When someone begins to express interest and direction, the resources and guidance should be available for them to choose to pursue, for them to ask. Then at that point they can choose to take on a structure that is most conducive to their chosen desire of skill and knowledge.

But to impose to much structure in the early years, break down natural curiosity, break down those at times whimsical desires to just explore and expand by ones own means. I think this is a huge part of the catastrophe. The fact people are reaching the age of 18 without a clear idea of what they care the most about in the world I think is the huge and obvious symptom of this issue. The current system does not allow enough room for passion to develop by the means natural human instinct wants to develop it. Kids are coming our of K-12 without passion, but instead a mind traumatized by forced coercion into something that is entirely ASSUMED to be 'good' for them.

[dio]

Originally Posted by Gibonius

Just look at how ry approaches problems for your answer. You get a lot of intellectual masturbation, very little rigor, and no meaningful progress.

I have an apprentice that I am teaching my knowledge and skill to. Which is going how I think it should go. He comes to me and asks me to tell him what to do and teach him things. He has developed innate passion and desire to learn on his own, I provide it when he asks. When he wants me to lay out more structure for him, I do. This is how it should work.

[Jehannum]

Originally Posted by dio

I do not think computer science is best taught how math is taught

That's because you have no idea what computer science actually is, if you're conflating it with "programming".

What you're describing is Montessori learning, and it's great for K-5. Not so much for children > 10, though, since at that point they start moving into adolescence and puberty, focusing on hormones and gonads more than learning anything useful.

[Tex Arcana]

Originally Posted by dio

I have an apprentice... He comes to me... He has developed innate passion and desire... I provide... when he asks. When he wants me to lay... him, I do. This is how it should work.

Corrected for accuracy

[Vote McCain!]

Originally Posted by dio

my knowledge and skill

bahaaahaha, HAHAAAAHAHAHAA!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gibonius]

Originally Posted by dio

I have an apprentice that I am teaching my knowledge and skill to. Which is going how I think it should go. He comes to me and asks me to tell him what to do and teach him things. He has developed innate passion and desire to learn on his own, I provide it when he asks. When he wants me to lay out more structure for him, I do. This is how it should work.

There are certain things that can be learned independently. However, it's not a universal model, as your gross failings to comprehend science would demonstrate.

As far as an apprentice model, you need to get to a certain base level before that can work. Grad school in the sciences is essentially this structure (well, in a good lab anyway), but without a good undergrad education first, you'd be totally lost and wouldn't gain anything from the experience. Moreso, there's just an economy of scale issue. You can't have every kid learning math in an intensive 1:1 environment with a mathematician. They need to learn that shit in essentially a factory setting. Enter: public schooling.

[Vendetta]

Originally Posted by dio

I have an apprentice that I am teaching my knowledge and skill to. Which is going how I think it should go. He comes to me and asks me to tell him what to do and teach him things. He has developed innate passion and desire to learn on his own, I provide it when he asks. When he wants me to lay out more structure for him, I do. This is how it should work.

The apprentice model aside, please god stop what you are doing. You don't actually know anything.

[dio]

Originally Posted by Vendetta

The apprentice model aside, please god stop what you are doing. You don't actually know anything.

Go back to your golden throne atop of a pile of cancer ridden bodies.

[dio]

Originally Posted by Gibonius

There are certain things that can be learned independently. However, it's not a universal model, as your gross failings to comprehend science would demonstrate.

As far as an apprentice model, you need to get to a certain base level before that can work. Grad school in the sciences is essentially this structure (well, in a good lab anyway), but without a good undergrad education first, you'd be totally lost and wouldn't gain anything from the experience. Moreso, there's just an economy of scale issue. You can't have every kid learning math in an intensive 1:1 environment with a mathematician. They need to learn that shit in essentially a factory setting. Enter: public schooling.

I think this is all true.

It's just I think the organization of these structures need to be more organic. Rather than assume human instinct is wrong, it should be assumed it is correct, and things rearranged to naturally flow with it.

I think the way lab sciences taught through the university level is ideal. But to then extend that structure all the way back through high school, middle school, elementary school, on the assumption all kids need preparation for that kind of structure? No way. The opportunity should be available if chosen. The structure needs to be chosen. Forcing anything will naturally produce resistance and rebellion. Until someone ASKS and knows how to ask it is useless to give it to them. Support and guidance given before one makes the decision themselves to want that support and guidance is doomed to failure in the majority of cases (just look at the education system as it is).

[dio]

Originally Posted by Jehannum

That's because you have no idea what computer science actually is, if you're conflating it with "programming".

What you're describing is Montessori learning, and it's great for K-5. Not so much for children > 10, though, since at that point they start moving into adolescence and puberty, focusing on hormones and gonads more than learning anything useful.

Learning the math behind computer science, I would say is best in a standard curriculum. Learning deep level concepts like bit-wise arithmetic or assembly, best in standard curriculum.

When you get to the level of beginning to deal with the architecting and implementation of complex novel systems. No way. They are way too organic in nature, trying to contort the prerequisite brain state for that into a highly structured curriculum is not ideal.

And just because you didn't get laid alot in your early high school years doesn't mean you need to hold resentment to those that did.