Teaching Learning.

I agree with the majority of the above statements. It does seem these days a lot of people simply do not care enough about what they are taught in schools to really put the effort in or feel that it will be of some use to them in later life. I myself am I only 17 and currently at a 6th form college, and I find it amazing that there is but a minority of students who really put the effort in and attempt to get the grades. I do think that for a large part of the student population, it is simply the subject matter that is taught that they do share an interest in. I am among these students, and as a thread that I have just started asks, would we perhaps all be better off if we were to learn out of our own determination to do so, in a wide range of subjects. A large part of the reason for the disengagement of students with the education system I feel is that they have no say over what is taught in the syllabus. Not only this but there is perhaps a distinct lack of diversity in terms of subject range until you get to university (my college for example does not have a philosophy course, the closest thing to it is sociology or psychology). In answer to your questions, I don't think there is a distinct way in which you can teach a child to want to learn. That child (and it goes for young adults aswell) has to want to learn out of their own accord or will. What many students I'm sure find is that they simply have a lack of motivation that is required to really learn about a subject. I think what people have to realise in todays world is that unemployment is becoming more and more common, and if you are not willing to push yourself to get the grades and do well in school then (as Dudette said) you place yourself at the back of the queue for employment.
As for the teaching children to make decisions, there was another thread somewhere on here about what the most important subject taught in school is, in terms of helping you out in life. And in all honesty, whilst philosophy might be slightly looked down upon by various members of the education system it does seem that the ability to think in depth about a whole range of subjects, and getting various perspectives, does allow you to cement your own ideas in a much more certain and well-informed way. In this way I agree with Rivelli's point that perhaps Logic and Philosophy should be wider incorporated into the education system (and at high school and college level as well as universities).

We have raised kids for many thousands of years, and made them civil and knowledable without that useless existential factor.

Did Alexander the Great conquor the known world helped by existentialism? Did the roman empire rule the world with existentialism?

Infact isn't this existentialism just replacing Santa and God?

[QUOTE=de_budding;12015]My motives are that I see too many kids who don't want to be at school who are- perhaps quite rightly, claiming that they see "no point". Or I think another classic childhood phrase would be "it's not fair!!!!". Which I agree it isn't fair to force kids into an education they don't see the point or application of. I know my brother certainly thinks he was led into wasting 2 years at college at age 16, which in my opinion means he wasn't able to make his decisions at age 16, shocking if you ask me.[/QUOTE]How should a kid have foreknowledge of what excatly an education brings?

Imo most of middle school education is a good waste of time, we learn high grade math which is quite useless for like 95% of all people, the last 5% could easily have such math added later. Same goes for Physic with complex calculations, we can't remember any of such calculations just 5 years after, less 10 years after.

There are much more practical knowledge out there, we could easily benefit from, such as social behaviour, communication, basic law ..etc.

[QUOTE=de_budding;12015]So my girlfriends main argument is that you can't teach young children how to make decisions (at least not in the way I'm suggesting*). So my questions (finally) are...[/QUOTE]



[QUOTE=de_budding;12015]*The way I'm suggesting is probably an existentialist-style reaction to situations, where a moral and practical framework is quickly constructed when confronted with a decision in order to make the most out of the decision.[/QUOTE]Please forget that existentialist, never really seen it put to good use, other than mere endulgence, else by all means convince me that it actually is for something useful.

I don't believe we have to teach children how to learn. Children, more than adults, are naturally curious. This curiosity leads them to pursue a subject, and as a result, learn about that subjects. Children know how to learn, they just aren't interested in what public education has to teach.

Of course, no child is alike. Therefore, to teach each child under the same curriculum will not work. There will always be students who will never become curious about math or science and never truly learn those subjects. I believe that's why these children scream. "I don't care." Frankly, they really don't.

For children to learn, the curriculum can't be one-size fits all. Also, the child should have some aspect of choice. Who else knows what they are curious about better than the child? If the student is submerged in information they are interested in, they learn!! Also, they start to see the point of going to school, and stay in it.

This is pretty much spot on. Children do not have to be taught how to learn, but rather, must be taught in a way that allows their natural curiosities to kick in. Thus, more should be done to encourage those who are gifted with teaching skills to be more inclined to go into teaching fields.

I would have thought that learning is a skill, so that like in the case of (say) swimming, someone can be a natural learner, but training and instruction always helps.

I think learning should be fun, engaging and relative as we all learn this way naturally. Even difficult subjects such as death children can learn in a fun way as songs about the Black Death are just about still around.

I think the hierarchical way education is set up is very damaging as people learn this system and keep using this perception through out there life's. I think people would generally be better of with out it and would be much better of seeing them self as working as part of a team.

I don't quite know what is meant by saying that learning is relative, but I agree that to the extent that it can be make fun and engaging, it should be made so. But, unfortunately, it is often impossible for many (perhaps most) things you learn after (say) the age of nine or ten, and certainly into university, to be made fun and engaging. The reason for that is something that the Dutch philosopher, Benedict Spinoza, wrote. Spinoza wrote:

"All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare. If they were not, then anyone could do them". You may find Spinoza's thought saddening, even unsettling, but it is true, nevertheless.

Relative I was thinking about relative to the way adults live there lives.
Sit down exams teachers learn to teach students to learn and students learn to do but they are not really useful as once you have left education they are never used again.

Learning to fail and get up again is another good one. Thomas Edison "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

Trying to do difficult thing is fun if you think you can achieve a reward and result. Scientists would not discover if there was no prize and recognition at the end there career.

Well, I have all trhough my life heard about fools that ran off and tryed to invent/research things that nobody would belive in. Needest I say Theory of Evolution? Super Strings? ..etc.

That's a good point. Don't we always find some kind of value system to argue for? Even if it's just the value system of having no fixed value system?

Of course many Exs are atheists, but some of them cook up terms like "Bad Faith" and this strikes me as a replacement for sin, although it's more sophisticated. But that Jesus guy was somewhat sophisticated as well, even if he's only a literary character...

I don't think you quite got what Spinoza was saying. He said that all excellent things are difficult, and that we know that they are difficult because they are rare (not underdone, but infrequent). Spinoza never promise that learning would be fun, or that it would be engaging. Why should he have? First of all, for most people (especially nowadays) what is difficult is never fun. In fact, so far as learning goes, they have never really experienced difficulty. Not because learning isn't difficult. But because they are no allowed to do anything difficult by their teachers, who are afraid to expect any kind of effort from their students. Hence the state of elementary and middle school education today.

I think excellent things are rare because you have to think different to discover them other people do not normally recognizes them because they are different than there normal perception and fined it difficult to except.
General education teaches people to think the same way and not creatively using the imagination so less excellent rare things are discovered and recognized as useful.


I think this is probably why dropouts and out sides tend to come up with rare excellent things.

No. I think that the reason is the one Spinoza give. Excellent things are rare because they are difficult. If your view were correct then dropout might very well come up with excellent things. But if they do so at all, it is very rare. I am afraid that hard work is always necessary to accomplish great things just as your mother always told you it was. There are no magic bullets. And there are no magic excuses either.

Wherever did you get the idea that it is from dropouts that we get most of our excellent things? Thomas Alva Edison is not typical. He is a rare exception.

When Galileo suggested the world went round the sun he was attached by his fellow Citizens.
When Darwin discovered evolution he was attached by his fellow Citizens.
The leading Architects of the modern movement where un-qualified architects and originally attached for there views by qualified architects.
Van Gogh was a un discovered none trained artist.
Einstein made his discoveries when not working in science.
Steve jobs & Bill Gates dropped out of university.
Popular musicians drop out of the education system there new music is not normally recognizes till later such as Punk Rock and other rebel music styles.
Entrepreneurs have to drop out of regular jobs and formal education to discover new ideas.


There is an interesting exhibition on Italian Renaissance pencil drawing at the British Museum at the moment. Most of the artist draw with a fantastic accurate style till one artist starts making lots of mistakes redrawing over his on lines. That's Leonardo worth seeing.

It is a bit like you have to be a different none conformist and make lots of mistake to come up with some thing new. Education and society teaches that you must conform and get things correct.

I think the deepest of the concepts roots in our caveman instinct, our need for idolisation ..just that our modern values can spread the concept to systems that gives us endulgence, status, unity ..etc.

In days of old, we needed heroes and great leaders to look up to, because we were a bit more ignorent, contrary today many thinks "PFFF!! I can do that least as good, if not better" or "what an incompetent moron and that big fat hippocrite!".

I've read the first three pages to see if anyone has written exactly what i am about to write, but did not see such so here it is.

Many people touched up on the topic saying taking philosophy will help, or curiosity is what facilitates learning, but what really is lacking is value. I believe value is what necessary to keep kids learning

learning philosophy is good because they will learn the general value, ethics and virtue of all things considered.
curiosity is necessary, well curiosity is just something or some idea that is of value to you which you then will engage in it; whether it be a ant for kids, learning C++ for high school students, or perusing premed in college. They are interested/curious because that subject or thing is of value to them, whatever that value may speak to.

When kids ask why should we learn this, i.e. math. the answer is not, "because if you don't do this now, you will never ever do this in your life." Which is true but quite demoralizing to students told that they have to do it for the sake of doing for the absence of the opportunity in their life. (true for most american history, world history, econ, gov, and even science based classes). So why do we teach them?

of course, because kids have no idea what they are capable of so we need to give them the widest cocktail available... and someone said earlier about education tailored specifically for a certain company. very efficient.

I always believed in this concept; value.

I am a history major; i seek to teach the why of every incident that have ever occurred on this planet mixed with philosophical, biological, chemical, physical, literal advancements and the evolution of human society from those advancements made by individuals and societies feeding from them. Architects do not have to work in firms in cities. They can build simple, functional, affordable houses and facilities in Africa and save literally BILLIONS of people. Many kids I have taught seem to believe saving lives can only be done as a pre-med. major. not true. But that is the reality. they do not know the value of what it is to become and its full capacity in every subject.
This is something eveyone, today, is required to learn by themselves, hindered by the bombardment of all other facts they are required to absorb. The fault lies in the 'system' of this shotgun approach, but so does in the children who believe that they should be taught this value (what i have written above) of things so that they can be taught how to do what they want asap. They think that because they are not guided to what they love by the age of 16, the system is dumb and inefficient. ...well no. The system has its limitations. That is a given. The kids are the ones who have to learn this, and not b***h and nag at the system and blame them for what they believe is their "failure".

The key between these two, imo is the parents.
Kids have no clue to make the connection of their existence, future, happiness and fulfillment.
the system cannot tailor all education to meed every students standards, not now in america at least when 90% of all tax goes to nuclear missiles and millitary (exaggeration understood, but this is how i feel america views education relative to all others through observation, outcome and experience, not data)

So if not the kids, nor the teachers, who?

parents.
am i not right?

kids are clueless, but so are the public education system.
I see it that the Public Education System (p.e.s.) should be seen only as a form of social gathering for kids to mingle with their kind to build social interactive skills in their own kind to prep them for the 'real' societal world, and not much more should be expected from it, as history proves. (individuals who truly excel will graduate years earlier from pes and graduate universities in a year or two. no time to nag about the incompetence of pes.
Parents need to teach them value and importance and aid in the search for the desire, instinct, value of the children.

The issue of "pes is inpotent" and "children not knowing what do in life and sees school as dumb" is most apparent today than ever because parents are absent from their life. Both parents, usually, must work and kids are left to play video games, without the opportunity to learn to even respect their parents in extreme cases.

any input?

sory for being so long an never revising before post; i beg forgiveness for the dribbling of words and horrible grammar.

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 02:36 PM ----------

one more thing i forgot to elaborate on that i introduced in the previous post.
I 'was' a biochem major. I had compelted 1 year of physics, 1.5 year of math, 2.5 year of chemistry, 1.5 year's worth of biology. and it occured to me as i was pondering about values. I HATED biology because for biochemists, learning 50 different plant's genus, phylum and species and their ecology was THE BIGGEST WASTE OF TIME AND LIFE. but i had to do it. why? because this "biology class" was taught by a taxonomist. WHAT??? why is a post taxonomist teaching future dentists, physicists, chemists, astronomers, brain surgeons, etc.

I believe that dentists should teach dentists how to become dentists. Physicists should teach physicists how to become physicists etc. THEY know what they need to learn, they know what is most important, they know what is most VALUABE in the discipline and can prepare them for what is about to come.

doesn't it defeat the purpose of deciding on a "major" when you still have to learn OBVIOUSLY irrelevant concepts in biology or w/e, and even worse "GE's" as well.... haven't we done enough GE's in the past 12 years??? if one is "undecided" on their major, they will take all the classes they wish on their own; english, psychology, physio, history, etc. there's no need for 'guidelines' for everyone, especially those who already have decided on their majors, to take as a requirement in universites. These aspects give the name "13th grade" to university attendees. it is merely an extension of high school. quite sad.

don't you think so?

I agree with you on this. When one goes to college they're not learning what will be the most valuable for their future and their field, they are learning a curriculum made for the general people, not specifically designed to cater to ones own path. Not that I believe learning general knowledge is detrimental. I do, however, strongly advocate more apprenticeships and similar programs in the educational process. Learning is not just the memorization of facts but it also has a hands on proponent that is hardly utilized in the education system.

Of course no one expect that everything you learn in college will be valuable for your future and field, but:

1. That does not mean that nothing you learn will be, and 2. there will be much you learn that will enrich your future (or will if you let it) and not be valuable for your success in what you you will be doing.

I think one of the problems it that we learn through making relevant connections so if you learn without any practical experience of how the information you are learning is going to be used it becomes little to no use. I think this is why student who have worked in their chosen profession before they go to university will do much better than student that haven't. This is why people who come from a less well of background do less well academically as there are no frames of reference for them.

---------- Post added 06-08-2010 at 09:08 AM ----------

If you want to learn a creative subject you need to learn by making un relevant information relevant. Which is why it is difficult to grade people who are trying to learn a creative subject. In creative subjects learning to fail is as important if not more than learning to pass.