So, this chick from work...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yeah, because at age 11 I enjoyed going to school so much I even turned up early on sunday mornings.

Yeah because the current education system is obviously the best possible and suffers from absolutley no flaws. It's impossible to imagine a system which could be even vaguely superior and therefore the attitude of children towards it should be taken as something we can abstract to education more generally.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah because the current education system is obviously the best possible and suffers from absolutley no flaws. It's impossible to imagine a system which could be even vaguely superior and therefore the attitude of children towards it should be taken as something we can abstract to education more generally.

Yeah because not having the perfect system means you shouldn't point out flaws in other people's ideas. The fact they wouldn't work without a number of other changes is irrelevant, anyone's ideas deserve to be taken as seriously as anyone else's.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I think outlying communities on the north west scottish isle's should be evacuated and turned into prison islands.

Send em all there, then at least if they want to come steal and mug from us they'll have to learn summit pratical and hence can be rehabilitated.

Kurt Russell, 'Escape from the Shetlands'

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yeah because not having the perfect system means you shouldn't point out flaws in other people's ideas. The fact they wouldn't work without a number of other changes is irrelevant, anyone's ideas deserve to be taken as seriously as anyone else's.

I think you missed the point. Your evidence against a more voluntarist approach to education is the fact you didn't enjoy education at age eleven. Maybe so. But your experience of the education system was under the current (crappy) model. It's difficult for you or I to properly speculate on how children would appreciate a radically altered education system.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think you missed the point. Your evidence against a more voluntarist approach to education is the fact you didn't enjoy education at age eleven. Maybe so. But your experience of the education system was under the current (crappy) model. It's difficult for you or I to properly speculate on how children would appreciate a radically altered education system.

Indeed it would probably differ to some extent. However a radical alteration of the entire education system was not proposed. I severely doubt that making school voluntary would make it highly more attractive to children aged 9-14 who'd far rather spend the morning lying in bed. Certainly there were very few things I'd bother getting out of bed for at that time unless I was forced to do so.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Indeed it would probably differ to some extent. However a radical alteration of the entire education system was not proposed. I severely doubt that making school voluntary would make it highly more attractive to children aged 9-14 who'd far rather spend the morning lying in bed. Certainly there were very few things I'd bother getting out of bed for at that time unless I was forced to do so.

and all of those things were christmas

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Indeed it would probably differ to some extent. However a radical alteration of the entire education system was not proposed. I severely doubt that making school voluntary would make it highly more attractive to children aged 9-14 who'd far rather spend the morning lying in bed. Certainly there were very few things I'd bother getting out of bed for at that time unless I was forced to do so.

Well, I think making it voluntary would be a pretty radical shift. I know when things get made voluntary I tend to show more enthusiasm (I'm psychotically stubborn though, so as soon as someone says I have to do something I generally refuse).

If we are speculating, I'd say that making school voluntary would need (logically) to be combined with making work legal for younger people. So people could either stay at school or go to work. I know which I'd have preferred at that age.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, I think making it voluntary would be a pretty radical shift. I know when things get made voluntary I tend to show more enthusiasm (I'm psychotically stubborn though, so as soon as someone says I have to do something I generally refuse).

If we are speculating, I'd say that making school voluntary would need (logically) to be combined with making work legal for younger people. So people could either stay at school or go to work. I know which I'd have preferred at that age.

What age would we be talking about here as we seem to be avoiding the concept of parental responsibility? And making school voluntary by making people have to either work or attend school is not actually making it voluntary. It's like telling someone you'll either kill them with an axe or with a knife and now they have the freedom of choice! Or did I misunderstand your point?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What age would we be talking about here as we seem to be avoiding the concept of parental responsibility? And making school voluntary by making people have to either work or attend school is not actually making it voluntary. It's like telling someone you'll either kill them with an axe or with a knife and now they have the freedom of choice! Or did I misunderstand your point?

Well, it'd be voluntary in the same sense everything is voluntary. You wouldn't have to work or go to school if you didn't want to. Much like I don't "have" to go to work.

To make things more equitable I'd advocate paying students to attend you see. If they don't wish to go to school that's fine (they simply wouldn't be paid).

As for age, I'd say from 11-14 onwards. The details would probably be tweaked as a result of empirical data. Beyond the age of 12-ish it really does seem to be a waste of time using coercion to force people to go to school if they don't want to. If their parents wish to support them doing nothing then that's fine.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, it'd be voluntary in the same sense everything is voluntary. You wouldn't have to work or go to school if you didn't want to. Much like I don't "have" to go to work.

Point taken.

To make things more equitable I'd advocate paying students to attend you see. If they don't wish to go to school that's fine (they simply wouldn't be paid).

Surely pragmatically speaking that would cost an incredible amount. To have a realistic effect you'd have to pay students more than a negligible amount as I assume you're attempting to target those who are forced (practically speaking), or merely incorrectly (in many cases) view it as the best option, to leave school early in order to support their families and themselves.

As for age, I'd say from 11-14 onwards. The details would probably be tweaked as a result of empirical data. Beyond the age of 12-ish it really does seem to be a waste of time using coercion to force people to go to school if they don't want to. If their parents wish to support them doing nothing then that's fine.

Would school be compulsory below this age? Or would there be some sort of exam you could to sit and pass to get out of school early? Would children below this age also be paid?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Surely pragmatically speaking that would cost an incredible amount.

I dunno, for children a small amount of money is a fair amount (considering they don't have mortgages or debts and such to deal with). I have no idea what pocket money kids get these days, but something like £40 per week would be relatively cheap (in the grand scheme of things) but presumably would be a lot to a kid. Again though, I don't see any victory with kids staying in school full-stop. There are plenty of people I went to school with who were desperate to work from 14 so they could buy bling-bling jewellery or whatever other crap. Why stop them? In a humane society we would be able to re-enter education at any point we like without any problem. If at 30 they want to finish their GCSE in Sports Science thats cool.

Would school be compulsory below this age?

No, it'd be up to parents. It seems a pretty sickening example of statism that parents can currently be jailed for their children bunking of school (as happened recently).

Beyond a certain point I wouldn't have parents be able to force kids to go to school. Right now we're stuck with a rigid parents/children model. I'm presuming a more fluid community based approach to child raising.

Or would there be some sort of exam you could to sit and pass to get out of school early?

Nah. Fixed ages are a bit arbritrary so tbh it'd be under the discretion of whomever was involved.

Would children below this age also be paid?

There might be some sort of sliding scale for it, yeah. Obviously it seems silly paying (directly) children beyond a certain age. But remember, we already pay children. Indirectly (to their parents) and there's no strings attached, but it's the same sort of thing.

[StaticX]

When you say school should be voluntry. Should they be able to pick only the lessons they want to take? Would it be totally votuntry like at university, where they say you must go to all of your lectures but no one really cares if you do or don't, as long as you do the work and pass the exams?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by StaticX

When you say school should be voluntry. Should they be able to pick only the lessons they want to take? Would it be totally votuntry like at university, where they say you must go to all of your lectures but no one really cares if you do or don't, as long as you do the work and pass the exams?

Well, it might be helpful to make it increasingly voluntary. So let's say up until age x your classes are fixed (so you can be taught to read/write/basic maths). Then you get to choose which classes you attend. Then you can choose if you attend at all, etc. None of this is fixed of course, and I'd be surprised if every institution/region operated in the same way.

But in general the goal of education should not be to regiment, coerce and force individuals into studying subjects they despise for eleven years. There might be some things we insist upon (as self-discipline is an important life-skill to develop) but it seems counter-productive to be too prescriptive. Very young children when playing generally do "educational" things automatically. They like colouring, role-playing, exploring or building stuff. Pretty much all kids are "geeks" innately when very young. The education system does a marvellous job of utterly killing this impulse and making very large numbers of people absolutley despise the entire learning process.

Sure, puberty in the middle of all this turns people into complete morons but I still think that the education hardly helps matters.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Sure, puberty in the middle of all this turns people into complete morons but I still think that the education hardly helps matters.

Well it presumably helps them understand why they're turning into complete morons and that, while there's absolutely nothing they can do about it, they might actually survive it.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

This thread is astonishingly bad, even by the standards of GD.

Dante has a nice avatar though, it'´s worth being in this thread to look at that