Link to the Debate.
Any comments and discussion/arguments go here.
Link to the Debate.
Any comments and discussion/arguments go here.
MLIR's argument is weak...
Hammer & Sickle - Karacharovo
And I drank it strait down.
Innit what a nub.
I am only kidding, and now look forward to your drunken rant. I haven't had a good laugh for time.
I am always happy to see new debaters here in the Fight Club.
Son of Simetrical
And this debate is a first for both of us!
Although this may disappoint some people, I am indeed alive, I just went inactive for three years.
Senno has been walking the streets and propositioning --- That is how I turned up here. Sounds like he is at it again with the Electorisl College.
I am looking forward to this debate. I have my thoughts and they are split between the two positions. Good luck to the both of you. Go get 'em!
An interesting approach taken by both participants. However, I feel both arguments ignore the central premise concerning Western "education" and specifically public education altogether.
Public education is an economic need established by the State. It arose as a consequence of Industrialization. Public education was developed in order to keep the State's human capital from degenerating into wrench-turning-factory-monkeys in response to warnings such as Adam Smith prognosticated in his "...on the Wealth of Nations."
Public education is designed to counter the influences of large scale industrialization on a State's human capital. Prior to industrialization, most producers of goods were considered "skilled" or their jobs required significant knowledge and expertise. However, with Industrialization, much of production was seen to be done instead by machinery. The consequences, felt by some including Adam Smith, was that factory workers would not be a skilled labor force adding to the value of a State's human capital but, instead, be turned into wrench-turning monkeys by the complete uninvolvment, detachment and low-skill necessities of their job. Simply put, automation and machines make people stupid because they don't have to have any refined skills and their jobs are boring and mundane.
Thus, public education was born.
However, higher education has always existed. True, it was the province of the wealthy and affluent but, that wasn't always so. However, what has always been true is that this form of education has had consistent results over time with attendees becoming "accomplished" in whatever it was determined their studies valued.
Here's the major problem: What people interpret Public Education to be and what it actually is are two entirely different things. Public Education was only instituted as a way to mitigate the loss of value of a State's human capital. It was NEVER originally intended to drastically increase the value of the State's human capital in a similar fashion as "Elitist" schools have been doing since the beginnings of recorded history.
The problem is one of expectations and, worse, of reducing expectations in institutions of higher learning when attempting to comply with these false beliefs held by the public. If people actually knew what it was they were dealing with, then they could more accurately compare approaches and criticisms and improve both systems.
"Elitist" institutions produce, on average, better education because that is what they were originally designed to do. They are not designed to simply mitigate the bad influences of Industrialization on a State's human capital. If we want to change this and get similar results with non-elitist education, we MUST change the way it is structured and must re-align its performance requirements to reflect this new goal.
Last edited by Morkonan; November 28, 2008 at 10:46 AM. Reason: clarified meaning
That is exaclty why I strongly disagree with the UK governments approach to elitist education, and the way they have assimilated them into comprehensive schools, thus destroying the quality of education given.
Although this may disappoint some people, I am indeed alive, I just went inactive for three years.
I admit to not being familiar with the UK's system of education. But, I'm familiar with the principles it was founded under that are shared with most Western public education systems. Given that, I think I would agree with your sentiment.
In order for Public Education to comply with the public's desire, fueled by an incorrect idealism regarding the purpose of the system, it must be restructured to comply with these new expectations for which it is currently unsuited. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily in keeping with the system's original purpose of protecting the value of the State's intellectual (human) capital in the most efficient manner possible.
Times have changed, somewhat, as higher-tech industrial jobs require more education and, more importantly in the eyes of Adam Smith advocates, active participation and intellectual involvement by the worker. Specialized training inside the industrial setting takes place more frequently which acts as a slight buffer against the degradation of worker skills and intellect and enhances their value to the State.
However, the Public Education system founded to mitigate the effects of industrialization has not changed to any significant degree in regards to its purpose. It is frequently still a "puppy mill" system, churning out people who have pieces of paper that prove they showed up to some school for a certain number of years and very little else.
"Elitist" education (If I am familiar with how others here have used that term.) does not base itself on rubber-stamping certifications regarding education. If the public wishes such a value placed on Public (government sponsored) higher education that it commands the same respect given to those graduates of "Elitist" institutions, the it is their education system that must change and not that of the institutions they idealize.
In the UK there are a few remaining 'Grammar schools' still open, ones that have been around for years. They are still government funded, but entry is not granted on location but by academic achievement. Every year a test is taken by the brighter pupils in the rough area. The top 100 students, for my school, that take this test are granted a place at the school. As a result of this procedure, the standard of pupils and therefore of the overall enviroment of the school lead to very high results. Although schools such as mine still aim to get that 'piece of paper', the vast majority of the pupils will end up with a piece of paper with a dozen A's or A*'s on it. To put that into perspective, the national average is 66% of pupils with 5 or more A*-C grades.
Here in the UK we do not have the equivalent of an Adam Smith, but we have the great social reformers of the 19th century such as Seebohm Rowntree and Charles Booth, the first people ever to suggest, in the UK at least, that poverty is not the fault of the individual. While Adam Smith focused on the nationas workforce as a whole, our reformers looked at ways to improove basic health and education, and so free education, medical checks and schools meals were introduced, as well as early forms of benefits, suc has National Insurance against Illness and Unemployment. Your explanation of the public schooling is accurate and relevant to the UK, although very few people are aware of it, as we have not had anyone study this and petition the government to change things. In other words, we have not had an Adam Smith here.
I agree with your point entirely, and + rep for explaning your views so clearly.
Although this may disappoint some people, I am indeed alive, I just went inactive for three years.
All I know is I would have been better off in a school where people didn't let me behave as I did. I learned how to read at age 4, and I never did any homework, and never studied for any tests for the first 9 or so years of school. When studying finally became necessary in order to pass the tests, I had already become an old dog and now I'm in therapy for learning how to sit down and do my homework. So instead of being able to use my talent effectively I'm forced to fight a battle with my own mind every time I open a schoolbook. The battle usually ends with me sitting on forums instead of doing whatever I was supposed to do.
Naturally, I'm not suggesting there should be special schools for rich people. I only wish I wouldn't have had to spend the 3 first years of school waiting for my classmates to learn how to read. Unfortunately, in my country, being better than others is frowned upon and the weak are always prioritized over the understimulated. What the people in charge in my country don't understand is that bright kids are as frustrated about their situation as the less gifted. They want to put us all in the same bag and only help the slow ones keep up, never the fastest to reach their full potential. They also want us all to go to universities, and the result is (not "will be") and oversaturation of well-educated young people where the PHD's are fighting for the qualified jobs and the "masters of science" are fighting for a chair at the supermarket registers. And it's such a waste, and a disaster for the nation's economy.
But my point has already been made, it seems. I only wished to give an opinion based on experience.
Last edited by Beiss; December 08, 2008 at 04:20 AM.
Under the patronage of Halie Satanus, Emperor of Ice Cream, in the house of wilpuri
Where do you live? Apart from the later life points, you have described how I used to feel until I got into my current school, a selective grammar school. I am predicted A's and A*'s in all of my GCSE exams, unlike my friend who was more talanted than me, but did not enter, and is predicted B's and A's in all of her exams.
Although this may disappoint some people, I am indeed alive, I just went inactive for three years.
I live in Sweden. We don't have your system, unfortunately.
Under the patronage of Halie Satanus, Emperor of Ice Cream, in the house of wilpuri
Unfortunately our system is nearly gone, thanks to a socialist government. There are still a few grammar schools left, and they all offer extraordinary education to ensure their survival.
Although this may disappoint some people, I am indeed alive, I just went inactive for three years.
We never had a system like yours, I think. But I've heard people discuss it. It's too late for me, unfortunately, but maybe my own kids won't have to suffer as I have.
Under the patronage of Halie Satanus, Emperor of Ice Cream, in the house of wilpuri
The original, oldest grammar schools like my own were created by monks in the 12th/13th century, and newer ones have been created in the intervening yeares until the 19th century, when the government started turning them into public comprehensives.
Although this may disappoint some people, I am indeed alive, I just went inactive for three years.
The state system works fine for those that can adjust to it. I'm glad I went through it instead of a grammar school, and now, i'm in a good University (Bath) doing my degree. 4As at A-Level, 4A*,4A,3B at GCSE (those Bs were in Eng, Eng Lit & French, subjects i've hated to the core). If you can work through it, it still functions perfectly well. It may not be as good, but if you're bright, you should get through it, unless you're in a "poor" area with bad schools, which would be one that wouldn't have really had a grammar school in the first place. Most of my friends either scored fairly highly or scraped through. The ones that only scraped through were lazy (i.e. didn't do half the revision I did, didn't spend half the time on work I did). It wasn't bad teaching, they were just lazy.
However, just to add something to it, first evening at Uni, everyone proceeded to ask what type of school people had come from. The vast majority had gone through grammar schools / sixth form. Maybe me and my friends are just exceptions? And people say that we simply had a good state school, only I had one that was high up in the tables. All my other close friends, went to a typical, mid-table school, and those that put in the effort came out of there perfectly fine.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of the day.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Well, I'm lazy, and I put much of the blame on my school system. If I'd been forced to do my homework from first grade instead of from 12th, I might not actually have turned out so lazy.
Last edited by Beiss; December 11, 2008 at 04:48 PM.
Under the patronage of Halie Satanus, Emperor of Ice Cream, in the house of wilpuri