Author Topic: Theories of Education? (Read 25341 times)

DaClock · « **Reply #75 on:** February 27, 2009, 02:33:30 PM »

I'm part of a Washington State program called Running Start. Basically, I take classes at the community college in place of the classes I could take at high school. I'll have an Associate in Arts degree when I graduate in June. I think things like this, where students become consumers of educational goods, are great. I'm opposed to tracking, where students at some point are put in a certain career track at an early age that takes their education down a completely different path than others.

thestrongangel · « **Reply #76 on:** February 27, 2009, 09:02:00 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on February 27, 2009, 11:16:32 AM

Those are arguments for increasing standards and teaching learning rather than rote. I don't see an argument for annihilating the system wholesale and throwing the kids into the deep end of the pool.

I do since most kids are more teachable when their small. Don't believe me? Try to teach a 67-year old man the alphabet.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #77 on:** February 28, 2009, 12:01:35 AM »

Quote from: Rrulez4theSA on February 27, 2009, 09:02:00 PM

Quote from: The Schaef on February 27, 2009, 11:16:32 AM
Those are arguments for increasing standards and teaching learning rather than rote. I don't see an argument for annihilating the system wholesale and throwing the kids into the deep end of the pool.
I do since most kids are more teachable when their small. Don't believe me? Try to teach a 67-year old man the alphabet.

My friend Jael is brillant because her father would read her Kant and Hegel when she was like 8.

One of my fellow philosophy students and I are working on an essay on educational theory right now (but in a very different light than the theories I've presented so far). Basically, it will be a more practical version of Xavier's School for Gifted Children; selecting promising orphans at a young age and raising them in a school/commune structured to produce intellectual elites (although a great deal of time will be spent in educating them on terms of character and faith). Since we're both Catholics-awaiting-confirmation we'll probably use Catholicism is a paradigm.

Yeah, a Catholic school for mutants.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #78 on:** February 28, 2009, 12:40:08 AM »

What orphans need most is love, not intellectual training. If your school does not focus on providing a nurturing environment, and instead operates on a "survival of the fittest" mentality like you have talked about in this thread, then it will be doomed to failure. And even your "successes" will be intellectual giants and yet moral smurfs.

lightningninja · « **Reply #79 on:** February 28, 2009, 12:45:42 AM »

Who says it won't be nurturing?

Colin Michael · « **Reply #80 on:** February 28, 2009, 01:09:17 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 28, 2009, 12:40:08 AM

What orphans need most is love, not intellectual training. If your school does not focus on providing a nurturing environment, and instead operates on a "survival of the fittest" mentality like you have talked about in this thread, then it will be doomed to failure. And even your "successes" will be intellectual giants and yet moral smurfs.

I mean, its better to make them into something than to leave them.

The Schaef · « **Reply #81 on:** February 28, 2009, 08:18:40 AM »

Yes, but Mark makes a point about making them into something worthwhile.

Yes, the better taught someone is, the better they will do, all other things being equal. But the point behind the protests against this format is that all other things are not equal. The focus is strictly on intellectual training to the apparent exclusion of all else. But Jesus did not teach people on the virtues of mental prowess. You speak of the class system in Israel but it was the ruling caste for whom he reserved his harshest criticisms. Why? Because they had focused all their energies on religious training and elitism until they lost the plot. Paul's big speech is that all of the marvelous things that God gives us are completely worthless if we don't have... logic?

.... love.

thestrongangel · « **Reply #82 on:** February 28, 2009, 08:23:46 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on February 28, 2009, 08:18:40 AM

Yes, but Mark makes a point about making them into something worthwhile.

Yes, the better taught someone is, the better they will do, all other things being equal. But the point behind the protests against this format is that all other things are not equal. The focus is strictly on intellectual training to the apparent exclusion of all else. But Jesus did not teach people on the virtues of mental prowess. You speak of the class system in Israel but it was the ruling caste for whom he reserved his harshest criticisms. Why? Because they had focused all their energies on religious training and elitism until they lost the plot. Paul's big speech is that all of the marvelous things that God gives us are completely worthless if we don't have... logic?

.... love.

Very true. In the end, we won't need Mathamatics, Poetry, etc. Still, in this world, we might as well learn since we don't have much else to do anyway.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #83 on:** February 28, 2009, 01:02:00 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on February 28, 2009, 08:18:40 AM

Yes, but Mark makes a point about making them into something worthwhile.

Yes, the better taught someone is, the better they will do, all other things being equal. But the point behind the protests against this format is that all other things are not equal. The focus is strictly on intellectual training to the apparent exclusion of all else. But Jesus did not teach people on the virtues of mental prowess. You speak of the class system in Israel but it was the ruling caste for whom he reserved his harshest criticisms. Why? Because they had focused all their energies on religious training and elitism until they lost the plot. Paul's big speech is that all of the marvelous things that God gives us are completely worthless if we don't have... logic?

.... love.

Quote

a great deal of time will be spent in educating them on terms of character and faith

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #84 on:** February 28, 2009, 01:58:08 PM »

Character and Faith is not the same thing as Love.

If I have the faith to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

In addition, you are speaking in theory. I teach at a private school where some of our students could be described as orphans. I am speaking from experience.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #85 on:** February 28, 2009, 03:46:41 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 28, 2009, 01:58:08 PM

Character and Faith is not the same thing as Love.

If I have the faith to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

In addition, you are speaking in theory. I teach at a private school where some of our students could be described as orphans. I am speaking from experience.

Well, love is part of a good character.

The Schaef · « **Reply #86 on:** March 01, 2009, 01:18:13 AM »

1). I think it's interesting that the elites are the ones who get this specialized character education, making them not only the only persons who CAN achieve in life but also the only ones who can supposedly be good people in the process.

2). I think it's interesting that this form of education proposes even deeper and more radical replacement of standard parenting than the federalized education we currently "enjoy".

Colin Michael · « **Reply #87 on:** March 01, 2009, 02:28:35 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on March 01, 2009, 01:18:13 AM

1). I think it's interesting that the elites are the ones who get this specialized character education, making them not only the only persons who CAN achieve in life but also the only ones who can supposedly be good people in the process.

2). I think it's interesting that this form of education proposes even deeper and more radical replacement of standard parenting than the federalized education we currently "enjoy".

Doesn't society/humanity progress more from the brilliant becoming more brilliant than from the dumb becoming psuedo-brilliant?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #88 on:** March 01, 2009, 08:29:21 AM »

Why do you guys humor him?

The Schaef · « **Reply #89 on:** March 01, 2009, 09:08:52 AM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 01, 2009, 02:28:35 AM

Doesn't society/humanity progress more from the brilliant becoming more brilliant than from the dumb becoming psuedo-brilliant?

I can't say I've ever considered society to ever progress along only one attribute, or only from increasing the gap to the top percentage.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #90 on:** March 01, 2009, 11:47:08 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on March 01, 2009, 09:08:52 AM

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 01, 2009, 02:28:35 AM
Doesn't society/humanity progress more from the brilliant becoming more brilliant than from the dumb becoming psuedo-brilliant?

I can't say I've ever considered society to ever progress along only one attribute, or only from increasing the gap to the top percentage.

Think about it this way, excellence encourages (and often requires) excellence. Building a society to benefit the lower tier doesn't progress the tier that is moving forward. Also, the lower tier has no incentive for excellence. Building a competative situation will provide a progressing low power distance, not a large power distance.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #91 on:** March 01, 2009, 08:56:09 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 01, 2009, 08:29:21 AM

Why do you guys humor him?

Because he is at the same place as a really good friend of mine, except that my friend was there 10 years ago. I don't want to see Colin end up where my friend is today. I admit that I am somewhat doubtful of the effectiveness of my attempts to speak into Colin's life. However, I'm not willing to simply let him go silently into the night without even trying.

The Schaef · « **Reply #92 on:** March 01, 2009, 11:09:25 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 01, 2009, 11:47:08 AM

Think about it this way, excellence encourages (and often requires) excellence.

Unless it encourages mediocrity from those it does not deem worthy.

Quote

Building a society to benefit the lower tier doesn't progress the tier that is moving forward.

The problem, which you seem to continue not to grasp, is that an arbitrary selection is being made about who does and does not belong on what tier based on a single, flawed attribute.

Quote

Also, the lower tier has no incentive for excellence.

I would submit that a lower tier which is told it can only be a lower tier and summarily denied the resources you grant the upper tier is what removes the incentive, because there is no goal to achieve in the first place.

And lest continue down this false dichotomy of anarcho-capitalism or absolute communism, let me make it clear that to argue against locking people into a caste society is not the same thing as arguing for egalitarianism. Providing opportunities is not the same thing as deliberately handicapping the exceptional, a la Harrison Bergeron.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #93 on:** March 02, 2009, 12:30:42 AM »

Here's the thing. I could care less about the lower tier, but I'm not discouraging people from helping them.

I have no interest in denying opportunities to the lower tier (but no interest in helping them either).

By pushing the strong to be stronger, am I in any ways denying the lower tier the right to be strong? Certainly not.

crustpope · « **Reply #94 on:** March 02, 2009, 08:26:11 AM »

How does anarcho-capitalism stack up against scripture? Im not saying Jesus perfers any political theory or educational theory attatched to political ideals, but are their not guidelines established by Christ that might guide us?

(forgive me if this has been brought up over the weekend, I was unavailable to read it)

Is the divine call to care for the orphan, the widow and the alien simply limited to food and shelter or does it extend to other needs as well?

The Schaef · « **Reply #95 on:** March 02, 2009, 09:46:04 AM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 02, 2009, 12:30:42 AM

I could care less about the lower tier, but I'm not discouraging people from helping them.

Uh, yeah, you pretty much are, by demanding that resources be dedicated exclusively to one class of people.

And the reason you couldn't care less about the lower tier, is because you don't perceive yourself as one of "them".

Quote

I have no interest in denying opportunities to the lower tier (but no interest in helping them either).

You're advocating a system of mutual exclusivity. By definition that is the denial of opportunity on the most basic level.

Quote

By pushing the strong to be stronger, am I in any ways denying the lower tier the right to be strong? Certainly not.

Certainly you are, by dividing them based on a single arbitrary attribute and having different systems apply to each. A person's intellect is something that is just as much nature as nurture, and yet people of lesser intellect have excelled far beyond less motivated (or more self-serving) people of more raw talent. Under your proposed system those people would be immediately classified as second-class and not even have access to first-class materials based on their shortcomings in one attribute, with no consideration for their excellence in others.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #96 on:** March 02, 2009, 10:53:28 AM »

Colin, have you read any of Aldous Huxley, eg. Brave New World? I would think through that as well as some of Orwell's pieces (1984 for example), you can see what happens when you caste people into roles purely on intelligence. I guess the next question for you is, is intellect innate? Does it not need a warm and welcoming environment that reinforces ideals? How many students do you hear that come from a constant negative community, poor educational resources, and no positive reinforcement arise as an intellectual elite....not very many...

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #97 on:** March 02, 2009, 04:27:36 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 01, 2009, 08:56:09 PM

However, I'm not willing to simply let him go silently into the night without even trying.

Personally, I think he's just egging you guys on. He seems to be playing devil's advocate in the literal sense.

Of course, I could be wrong, in which case I would not qualify for any services in his new system.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #98 on:** March 02, 2009, 06:10:35 PM »

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on March 02, 2009, 10:53:28 AM

Colin, have you read any of Aldous Huxley, eg. Brave New World? I would think through that as well as some of Orwell's pieces (1984 for example), you can see what happens when you caste people into roles purely on intelligence. I guess the next question for you is, is intellect innate? Does it not need a warm and welcoming environment that reinforces ideals? How many students do you hear that come from a constant negative community, poor educational resources, and no positive reinforcement arise as an intellectual elite....not very many...

Thus, the plan for this educational facility is to create the environment best suited for creating intellectual elites. The facility existing won't prevent anyone from helping the needy and such.

I read Brave New World a long time ago and don't remember the themes of intellectual elitism in there. However, casting people into role based purely on intellegence and/or character is what naturally happens. I mean, affirmative action still exists, but that's not the point.

The Schaef · « **Reply #99 on:** March 02, 2009, 06:43:34 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on March 02, 2009, 06:10:35 PM

Thus, the plan for this educational facility is to create the environment best suited for creating intellectual elites.

No, your plan as outlined to us was to take those you DEEMED intellectual elites and give them distinct and separate training in order to produce an oligarchy in which they run the show. The separation as described takes place before the educational process, which was specifically promoted as different from the current system in which a baseline education is available to all, and people are free to pursue high-caliber interests of their own accord.

News:

Author Topic: Theories of Education? (Read 25341 times)

thestrongangel

The Schaef

thestrongangel

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef