Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You seem to have very nuanced concepts of "good and bad", which I don't fully grasp. I was starting from a rather simpler world view. Yes, I want society to function. Societal collapse is imho extremely bad.

Even regardless of collapse, I still much prefer living (and having gone to school) in a country that has schools. At no point did it seem to me what the point of school is to make people dumb. That wasn't the US and wherever yours was, your experience may be different, but I really don't understand the level of cynicism triggered here by every discussion involving schools. Access to education has brought lots of people out of poverty and I'm rather sure the vast majority of children much prefer school to hard work in the fields. I also think it's pretty clear thay on the scale of centuries schools around the world have improved tremendously. On the scale of decades and centuries, physical violence and bullying has decreased a lot, both by teachers and children, while creativity and understanding play a more important role in lessons today than was ever the case in compulsory education systems.



> Access to education has brought lots of people out of poverty

Sure. And if schools had anything to do with education, maybe they could do that here too. But you're also commenting in a thread where there is a link to credible (uncontested, uncontroversially attested) reports that the schools are shutting down education. Purportedly to help make everyone equal.

It's arguable what the cause of this is, the reasoning behind the decisions, etc. But that's what it says. They've started teaching less math. Not teaching it differently. Not teaching it at a different age. They just don't.

It would almost be a relief if you were to dispute the reports themselves, and claimed it was some weird conspiracy theory. This would be more compatible with the attitude that you're expressing.

In the US, schools and education started with little overlap, and have less year to year.


It's not that many schools and they stopped the policy again...

To my mind, the outrage is somewhat exaggerated. You could call it "outrage fetishism about culture war issues". Also an opportunity for "smart people" to feel good about "how they managed to learn things despite having to go to school" and how much better they think they could organize the school system, or how much smarter they would have been if no schools had existed.

Yes, maybe the stated reasons for trying this reform were stupid and maybe it should have been obvious to people it wouldn't work. But, crucially, they are willing to scrap what doesn't work and try something else. That can go a very long way given some time. And yes, that leaves us with an imperfect school system. Very different from arguing against having schools at all, a position far more outrageous to my mind than any "woke nonsense" I've been subjected to so far.


> t's not that many schools and they stopped the policy again.

And they'll start it again eventually. Maybe in a different district or a different state. This isn't the kind of thing they give up on easily or quickly, and they're not the sort to learn from their own failed experiments.

> and how much better they think they could organize the school system

No one could organize it. I couldn't. It's beyond any reform, beyond fixing. It is an intractable problem. Well, if you assume that its purpose is education.

If we examine its true, unspoken purpose, it is working far better than it ever has, and improves year to year. It is a mechanism for the government to raise children from the earliest age on up through adulthood, with parents have as little influence on that process as can be cheaply afforded.

My wife and I homeschool.

> But, crucially, they are willing to scrap what doesn't work and try something else.

No, they're willing to tone things down to avoid any PR backlash, and try again later when maybe those concerned are less attentive. All they have to do is be willing to try as many times as it takes, until they get lucky with the news cycle or the like.

I mean, from your perspective... why would they care if it didn't work? Do you imagine that the government (or any of its agencies or subdivisions as the case may be) loves these children? That it would grieve if a few thousand of them were permanently undereducated or miseducated by this? Would this committee cry itself to sleep every night regretting what it did wrong?

If it can't do these things, if it can't have regret or remorse of some sort when it does bad things, how can you imagine that it would ever stop doing bad things when those bad things cause it no inconvenience or problem?

>a position far more outrageous to my mind

I'd never say that about anything. There's nothing that I hold so sacred that I'd say "it's just outrageous that you want to get rid of X" or "are you mad that you'd say we should have Y?"

For me, I'd make good arguments outlining why there should be X, or that there should be a Y. And if you failed to agree, I'd try to understand what logic (or failure thereof) caused you remain unpersuaded.

When someone says something like this phrase though, all I can figure is that the status quo is important to them for irrational reasons. I've yet to hear a better hypothesis.


Homeschooling doesn't exist in my country. I hope it works well for you. I know some teachers and strongly believe that they know a lot of things and have skills relevant to teaching children that I do not. So I would never homeschool even given the chance. Also, interactions with other children and strangers in general play a very important part in education, which school does provide in my country. I'm assuming you have your own ways to provide this education, too.

> Would this committee cry itself to sleep

It's possible to have working political systems achieving meaningful goals without anyone involved having to cry themselves to sleep. There's a lot of people who care about improving things (including those who implemented these policies). They really think they can make education better and they're really trying. Now, there will be disagreement about what the goals are and how to achieve any given goal. Over time, a democracy is very good at distilling these disagreements into policies that almost always aren't terrible (as opposed to "occasionally excellent" or something like that). The best way to get what you want is to take part in that process. I'm pretty sure trying to pretend "there's no such thing as society" and that you're living in an anarchy bites you in the back eventually (not that I think you're doing that).

> I'd never say [outrageous]

Maybe that word means something else to you than to me (I learned English in school). I would call a large part of this discussion and these comments here "public outrage". There is public outrage about a reform that made a few schools worse. The outrage lead to a change of policy. This is good and how a democratic process generally works. I also see "outrageous" as a spectrum, where you can of course discuss outrageous things but extraordinary claims (or proposals) require extraordinary evidence (or arguments). Arguing against schools is such an instance in my mind, comparable to arguing against medicine or rule if law (I assume at the very least 98% of people in my country would agree).

I'm aware of US education systems being called broken a lot. We call ours broken too but that only drives efforts to improve it, not giving up. My outside perspective is that the system you have is certainly preferable to no schools at all, that it's definitely possible to improve it, and that it will improve (over decades to centuries) assuming human civilization doesn't (partially) collapse.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: