Quote:
Originally Posted by Ensign Steve
Beyond that, I think some kids need Calculus and other kids need 17th Century French Literature, but I bet there are very few kids that will end up having a use for both in their adult life. I recommend offering all of them so the student will have a chance to challenge themselves and see what they are interested in or good at. But when the kid reaches that age where they know they just plain aren't into math, it's just cruel to force them to take year after year of algebra, geometry, etc. If they're not good at it, they're not going to go into a field that requires it, and vice versa. In the meantime it just causes fights and bad grades and feelings of failure.
|
I have a problem with using a utilitarian standard to determine the value and focus of an education. My primary subjects of interest, literature and history, don't exactly lead to piles of jerbs (YOU'RE MAJORING IN WHAT? YOU CAN ALWAYS TEACH LOL) but I loved them throughout formal schooling and I still love them now. Why should going into a field that requires the acquisition of specific knowledge be the determining factor of what you learn?
Cognitive development, exposure to new ideas and ways of seeing, challenging your brain to do things that don't come naturally, all have an intrinsic value, imo, and I think a solid general education should have more of that sort of shit, not less, even if there's no direct relevance to later employment.