Is School Slavery With Benifits?

[Farnhamia]

Available? Certainly. You're making a false dichotomy, though, by implying that classroom time and homework are useless. Or so it seems.

It might not be completely useless, but it also is far more inefficient than the alternative if the student actually wishes to learn. And not only that, but it is compulsory.

And that last is the key to almost every argument I have ever seen you make here, that you are against anything that is compulsory, that you know far better than the people who make things compulsory, and if you don't, you know where to look up the relevant arguments against those things in the Von Mises Library.

[Bendira]

Lol, so if you go read a biography about Wallenstein during the 30 Years War, and you take the test and get two watered down questions about him, that was worth it?

If you know the test questions will be easy, why have you read the book in the first place? Seems strange to me.

Often times what I learn through independent study contradicts what I learn in the classroom. So there is actually a greater chance of me doing worse if I studied independently and in depth, rather than reading the one paragraph summary of his life in the textbook. And why would I read a book like that? Idk, maybe because I want to learn something?

[Bendira]

It might not be completely useless, but it also is far more inefficient than the alternative if the student actually wishes to learn. And not only that, but it is compulsory.

And that last is the key to almost every argument I have ever seen you make here, that you are against anything that is compulsory, that you know far better than the people who make things compulsory, and if you don't, you know where to look up the relevant arguments against those things in the Von Mises Library.

I don't claim to me smarter than the people that make things compulsory. However, I wouldn't say I was less intelligent or inferrior to them in any way. Therefor, why do they have the power to TELL me what THEY feel is important for me to learn? What if they are wrong? And what makes me automatically wrong and them automatically right?

[Hydesland]

So there is actually a greater chance of me doing worse if I studied independently and in depth, rather than reading the one paragraph summary of his life in the textbook.

This is rarely ever true. In fact this really only happens when people consider 'independent study' some shitty unaccredited website or blog.

[Dakini]

That compared to your classmates, you were mediocre?

No, that in a school of 250 people I was in the top 5th of my class with an 85. And I slept through all the classes.

...50/250 means that 49 people beat you. My graduating class was probably a similar size, maybe larger. I can only think of a handful of people who beat me (at least among those who took similarly difficult courses), but nobody posted ranks so I'm not sure exactly where I fell in high school. Definitely in the top 10%, more likely in the top 5%.

I didn't sleep through class, but it was rare that I did any work outside of class (or studied for any tests). Usually the work I did outside class consisted of typing up homework assignments that needed to be typed up or spending half an hour tying up loose ends on the work I didn't finish during class. Occasionally there were large assignments that required a few hours on the weekend, but really it wasn't that much work for me.

[Mostly armless]

If you know the test questions will be easy, why have you read the book in the first place? Seems strange to me.

Often times what I learn through independent study contradicts what I learn in the classroom. So there is actually a greater chance of me doing worse if I studied independently and in depth, rather than reading the one paragraph summary of his life in the textbook. And why would I read a book like that? Idk, maybe because I want to learn something?

Looks like you've answered your own question about whether it was worth it or not.
If you do worse for knowing more about a subject and being more able in it, then something is wrong.

[Dazchan]

Employers testing their candidates sounds prohibitively expensive. If only they could outsource this to some other organisation, which could do the tests for them and provide a copy of the results to the candidate in writing, to be presented to the employer, saving both time and money. Oh wait...

Are you trying to say that public school's test self educated people?

How else would home-schooled students sit the SAT?

Anyone who knows anything about teaching knows that this statement was extruded from the rear of a bovine.

Anybody who has ever lived in a state that issues regents exams knows what im talking about.

Given that you've admitted that you slept through your education, your opinion is noted and given the appropriate weighting.

Because that's what it does cost.

Source?

My school's budget, for one.

I'll be charitable and help you here. The cost of a home tutor these days is around $35 per hour (or it was five years ago when I last did it). Let's assume that these children have no experience reading, which is common in children when they begin school these days. They would need at least 3 hours instruction in literacy per day (we'll overlook their need for numeracy for now).

3x35=$105 per day for a single tutor.

Let's assume that these classes run five days a week, 40 weeks per year, like school. I take these figures because your comedy routine hasn't indicated that they'd run more or less frequently.

$105x5=$525 per week

$525x40=$21,000 per year.

We're already in the thousands of dollars, and we haven't even considered resources, equipment or location (most bookstores wouldn't have the space to operate a classroom)...

[Bendira]

So there is actually a greater chance of me doing worse if I studied independently and in depth, rather than reading the one paragraph summary of his life in the textbook.

This is rarely ever true. In fact this really only happens when people consider 'independent study' some shitty unaccredited website or blog.

Lol, a good example is if I get a test question asking what the most significant thing Wallenstein did during the 30 years war was. In the textbook, there is a sentence that says "The most significant thing Wallenstein did during the 30 years war was X". However if I studied independently, I might disagree with the textbook because, god forbid, I know enough about the topic to not just accept whatever my school textbook authors opinion was. So if I answer with something from the biography I read, you cannot expect the high school teacher to actually know jack shit about Wallensteins life. He or she has most likely just read the sentence in the textbook too. How the hell does somebody who is ignorant of Wallensteins life grade my paper?

[Rolamec]

School is expensive babysitting.

^This. Assuming the OP isn't some middle school douche bag who would rather be spending his days fapping than learning; no school is nothing like slavery. Frankly, children are spoiled little brats who are too fucking dumb to realize that a primary education provides them some very basic schools like, uh, I don't know reading, writing and adding...you know that useless stuff on behalf of the taxpayers, who have to fund it, even if their own kids don't go to said school or they themselves don't have any children and never used the public school system. So yeah, school is like slavery....for the taxpayers, where their hard earned money is spent on ingrates who don't understand the value of a freaking basic education. Not undergraduate school, not grad or even to earn a doctorate degree, but public school. So sort of.

[Farnhamia]

And that last is the key to almost every argument I have ever seen you make here, that you are against anything that is compulsory, that you know far better than the people who make things compulsory, and if you don't, you know where to look up the relevant arguments against those things in the Von Mises Library.

I don't claim to me smarter than the people that make things compulsory. However, I wouldn't say I was less intelligent or inferrior to them in any way. Therefor, why do they have the power to TELL me what THEY feel is important for me to learn? What if they are wrong? And what makes me automatically wrong and them automatically right?

THEY have studied education and teaching for lifetimes longer than your 20 years, so the chances of them being correct are greater than the chances of you being correct in disagreeing with them. But that's an appeal to authority of sorts, so we'll leave it aside. My impression of you, based, admittedly, only on what you post here, is that you yourself consider your argument automatically right and any opposing argument automatically wrong. You start threads with little an-cap screeds and declare that no one can prove you wrong. You constantly hold up your personal experiences as definitive proof of your points. You probably are quite intelligent, but you're also humorless and arrogant, and as far as I can tell, obsessed with telling people they are not the boss of you. Sorry if that's an ad hominem, but it is my honest impression of you.

[Dakini]

This is rarely ever true. In fact this really only happens when people consider 'independent study' some shitty unaccredited website or blog.

Lol, a good example is if I get a test question asking what the most significant thing Wallenstein did during the 30 years war was. In the textbook, there is a sentence that says "The most significant thing Wallenstein did during the 30 years war was X". However if I studied independently, I might disagree with the textbook because, god forbid, I know enough about the topic to not just accept whatever my school textbook authors opinion was. So if I answer with something from the biography I read, you cannot expect the high school teacher to actually know jack shit about Wallensteins life. He or she has most likely just read the sentence in the textbook too. How the hell does somebody who is ignorant of Wallensteins life grade my paper?

You're aware that you can argue with a teacher, yes?

Although perhaps your teacher would point out the fact that the biography you selected has been questioned for its accuracy because maybe, just maybe, your teacher knows about the subject too?

I definitely had a lot of disagreements with my teachers (and I continue to have disagreements with my supervisor), but I ask why x is the answer when it seems like y could also be the answer. Sometimes I'm wrong and someone tells me as much (and explains this) and I learn from the experience. Sometimes I'm right and through my teacher (supervisor, mentor etc) I learn additional information.

[Bendira]

School is expensive babysitting.

^This. Assuming the OP isn't some middle school douche bag who would rather be spending his days fapping than learning; no school is nothing like slavery. Frankly, children are spoiled little brats who are too fucking dumb to realize that a primary education provides them some very basic schools like, uh, I don't know reading, writing and adding...you know that useless stuff on behalf of the taxpayers, who have to fund it, even if their own kids don't go to said school or they themselves don't have any children and never used the public school system. So yeah, school is like slavery....for the taxpayers, where their hard earned money is spent on ingrates who don't understand the value of a freaking basic education. Not undergraduate school, not grad or even to earn a doctorate degree, but public school. So sort of.

[Hydesland]

Lol, a good example is if I get a test question asking what the most significant thing Wallenstein did during the 30 years war was.

That's a pretty stupid question, either

a) your school is shit
b) you're lying
c) this was a test for younger students who were specifically assigned to read that paragraph and then sit an exam to test their memory of the information contained in that paragraph. Rather than it being a test of someone's general knowledge of Wallenstein.

you cannot expect the high school teacher to actually know jack shit about Wallensteins life.

Assumption.

[The Cat-Tribe]

If you know the test questions will be easy, why have you read the book in the first place? Seems strange to me.

Often times what I learn through independent study contradicts what I learn in the classroom. So there is actually a greater chance of me doing worse if I studied independently and in depth, rather than reading the one paragraph summary of his life in the textbook. And why would I read a book like that? Idk, maybe because I want to learn something?

And that last is the key to almost every argument I have ever seen you make here, that you are against anything that is compulsory, that you know far better than the people who make things compulsory, and if you don't, you know where to look up the relevant arguments against those things in the Von Mises Library.

I don't claim to me smarter than the people that make things compulsory. However, I wouldn't say I was less intelligent or inferrior to them in any way. Therefor, why do they have the power to TELL me what THEY feel is important for me to learn? What if they are wrong? And what makes me automatically wrong and them automatically right?

LIFE TIP: There are always sometimes going to be people with authority or you must please (especially in the private sector) but are wrong about something or know less than you about something they are ordering you around about. Having worked for a federal appellate court, I supposedly got a bar exam question "wrong" b/c I used a 3-prong test where the textbook said to use a 2-prong test -- when I had helped write the federal appellate opinion that was the prevailing law of the relevant state that created the 3-prong test. I can't tell you the number of times I was ordered when working for a major national law firm to do something unbelievably inane by a partner -- including spending an all-nighter trying to find caselaw that actually said a rock isn't hearsay. (Heasay is an out-of-court statement offered as evidence of the truth of the matter stated. A rock isn't a statement. Thus, it isn't hearsay. But 3 of the most powerful national partners in my firm working on a trial for one of the biggest computer companies in the country wanted me to "prove" I was right about this with a case.) In short, even if we lived in your ideal world, you would still have to please bosses or customers or somebody that was sometimes stupid or wrong. Learn to do it. It is a life skill.

[Georgism]

How the hell does somebody who is ignorant of Wallensteins life grade my paper?

They tend to have a list of things to look for (either facts and figures or, if an opinion piece, a mixture of those and various other things like how well you answer relates back to the question).

[Poorisolation]

If you know the test questions will be easy, why have you read the book in the first place? Seems strange to me.

Often times what I learn through independent study contradicts what I learn in the classroom. So there is actually a greater chance of me doing worse if I studied independently and in depth, rather than reading the one paragraph summary of his life in the textbook. And why would I read a book like that? Idk, maybe because I want to learn something?

Which (following straight from your last sentence) is considered one of the intended outcomes of a liberal education. Schools and schooling cannot no matter how capable the teachers they employ give you a complete knowledge of everything in the universe. Therefore in many schooling systems the objective is to teach a learning framework that you the student can then adapt to any real world situation you encounter.

Facts and figures thrown at you in the class room are often merely a practice run to hone those mental muscles. Some might be useful in and of themselves but a good many will not be however this does not make the learning of them redundant as learning is not a zero sum game, to take the teaching of languages as an example people who know two languages tend to find learning a third easier than a monolingual person of the same age will find learning a second language and so on.

Of course teaching to the test is often something that is taught in class room environments as lo in the real world learning according to what you might be tested on by a given employer or the immigration guy who does not believe you actually love your *insert cool nationality here* wife or by the internal security agent of a foreign power who has come to doubt your deep cover identity learning just to pass that one test is easier than trying to learn everything.

You cannot predict for sure what a student will encounter in the real world but systematic schooling has proven consistently successful at preparing people ready to adapt to the less than predictable.

[Bendira]

Often times what I learn through independent study contradicts what I learn in the classroom. So there is actually a greater chance of me doing worse if I studied independently and in depth, rather than reading the one paragraph summary of his life in the textbook. And why would I read a book like that? Idk, maybe because I want to learn something?

Which (following straight from your last sentence) is considered one of the intended outcomes of a liberal education. Schools and schooling cannot no matter how capable the teachers they employ give you a complete knowledge of everything in the universe. Therefore in many schooling systems the objective is to teach a learning framework that you the student can then adapt to any real world situation you encounter.

Facts and figures thrown at you in the class room are often merely a practice run to hone those mental muscles. Some might be useful in and of themselves but a good many will not be however this does not make the learning of them redundant as learning is not a zero sum game, to take the teaching of languages as an example people who know two languages tend to find learning a third easier than a monolingual person of the same age will find learning a second language and so on.

Of course teaching to the test is often something that is taught in class room environments as lo in the real world learning according to what you might be tested on by a given employer or the immigration guy who does not believe you actually love your *insert cool nationality here* wife or by the internal security agent of a foreign power who has come to doubt your deep cover identity learning just to pass that one test is easier than trying to learn everything.

You cannot predict for sure what a student will encounter in the real world but systematic schooling has proven consistently successful at preparing people ready to adapt to the less than predictable.

Lol I like the border patrol analogy. Like schools job is to prepare you to be ready to answer questions from government agents who want to throw you in prison.

[Georgism]

Lol I like the border patrol analogy. Like schools job is to prepare you to be ready to answer questions from government agents who want to throw you in prison.

And rape you with their nazi penises like the evil statist tyrant enforcers that they are.

[Bendira]

Often times what I learn through independent study contradicts what I learn in the classroom. So there is actually a greater chance of me doing worse if I studied independently and in depth, rather than reading the one paragraph summary of his life in the textbook. And why would I read a book like that? Idk, maybe because I want to learn something?

I don't claim to me smarter than the people that make things compulsory. However, I wouldn't say I was less intelligent or inferrior to them in any way. Therefor, why do they have the power to TELL me what THEY feel is important for me to learn? What if they are wrong? And what makes me automatically wrong and them automatically right?

LIFE TIP: There are always sometimes going to be people with authority or you must please (especially in the private sector) but are wrong about something or know less than you about something they are ordering you around about. Having worked for a federal appellate court, I supposedly got a bar exam question "wrong" b/c I used a 3-prong test where the textbook said to use a 2-prong test -- when I had helped write the federal appellate opinion that was the prevailing law of the relevant state that created the 3-prong test. I can't tell you the number of times I was ordered when working for a major national law firm to do something unbelievably inane by a partner -- including spending an all-nighter trying to find caselaw that actually said a rock isn't hearsay. (Heasay is an out-of-court statement offered as evidence of the truth of the matter stated. A rock isn't a statement. Thus, it isn't hearsay. But 3 of the most powerful national partners in my firm working on a trial for one of the biggest computer companies in the country wanted me to "prove" I was right about this with a case.) In short, even if we lived in your ideal world, you would still have to please bosses or customers or somebody that was sometimes stupid or wrong. Learn to do it. It is a life skill.

This is true, but in the private sector you aren't forced to be there. It is true that your boss can be a dick and waste your time. But you are getting paid for it, and if you don't like it you can leave. In public schools, you cannot simply leave, and you are not paid to be there.

[The Cat-Tribe]

LIFE TIP: There are always sometimes going to be people with authority or you must please (especially in the private sector) but are wrong about something or know less than you about something they are ordering you around about. Having worked for a federal appellate court, I supposedly got a bar exam question "wrong" b/c I used a 3-prong test where the textbook said to use a 2-prong test -- when I had helped write the federal appellate opinion that was the prevailing law of the relevant state that created the 3-prong test. I can't tell you the number of times I was ordered when working for a major national law firm to do something unbelievably inane by a partner -- including spending an all-nighter trying to find caselaw that actually said a rock isn't hearsay. (Heasay is an out-of-court statement offered as evidence of the truth of the matter stated. A rock isn't a statement. Thus, it isn't hearsay. But 3 of the most powerful national partners in my firm working on a trial for one of the biggest computer companies in the country wanted me to "prove" I was right about this with a case.) In short, even if we lived in your ideal world, you would still have to please bosses or customers or somebody that was sometimes stupid or wrong. Learn to do it. It is a life skill.

This is true, but in the private sector you aren't forced to be there. It is true that your boss can be a dick and waste your time. But you are getting paid for it, and if you don't like it you can leave. In public schools, you cannot simply leave, and you are not paid to be there.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach . . ."

[Mostly armless]

How the hell does somebody who is ignorant of Wallensteins life grade my paper?

They tend to have a list of things to look for (either facts and figures or, if an opinion piece, a mixture of those and various other things like how well you answer relates back to the question).

Exactly right, especially the part about relating your answer to the question...
My English teacher showed us three pieces of descriptive writing from a test, all written on the subject of a department store in the sales...

a) A pretty bad piece about going in a furniture store,
b) An incredibly well written piece set in Burger KIng,
c) A good piece written about a department store.

We discussed what we thought were each one's strong points and weak points. We all thought b) was the best, but when it was pointed out that it was not about the subject requested, we realised it was actually the worst.

The moral to the story? Always answer what the question asks you to.

[Wikkiwallana]

Public education is a prison. Anybody that says otherwise is a liar. It clearly is a prison, you cannot leave. Now whether it has benefits or not is the actual question, personally id say no. The education you receive in the classroom can be obtained at a library for virtually free, and even a better education at that. What you pay for with your taxes is the prison infrustructure to cage in all the kids pretty much.

Right because books that just sit there are as good as a trained instructor whose job it is to explain everything and answer your questions to the best of their ability. Clearly the two are equally capable of imparting knowledge and aiding comprehension.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

actually i would say that mandatory education isn't a good idea. sure leave the school as an option but you can't force people to learn if they don't want too.

Because children are renowned for their responsible decision making...

who is?

[Bendira]

Public education is a prison. Anybody that says otherwise is a liar. It clearly is a prison, you cannot leave. Now whether it has benefits or not is the actual question, personally id say no. The education you receive in the classroom can be obtained at a library for virtually free, and even a better education at that. What you pay for with your taxes is the prison infrustructure to cage in all the kids pretty much.

Right because books that just sit there are as good as a trained instructor whose job it is to explain everything and answer your questions to the best of their ability. Clearly the two are equally capable of imparting knowledge and aiding comprehension.

To the best of their ability is the problem. The book you are reading is most likely written by an expert or atleast somebody who did research. Your teacher is, well, a teacher.

[Tavalu]

LIFE TIP: There are always sometimes going to be people with authority or you must please (especially in the private sector) but are wrong about something or know less than you about something they are ordering you around about. Having worked for a federal appellate court, I supposedly got a bar exam question "wrong" b/c I used a 3-prong test where the textbook said to use a 2-prong test -- when I had helped write the federal appellate opinion that was the prevailing law of the relevant state that created the 3-prong test. I can't tell you the number of times I was ordered when working for a major national law firm to do something unbelievably inane by a partner -- including spending an all-nighter trying to find caselaw that actually said a rock isn't hearsay. (Heasay is an out-of-court statement offered as evidence of the truth of the matter stated. A rock isn't a statement. Thus, it isn't hearsay. But 3 of the most powerful national partners in my firm working on a trial for one of the biggest computer companies in the country wanted me to "prove" I was right about this with a case.) In short, even if we lived in your ideal world, you would still have to please bosses or customers or somebody that was sometimes stupid or wrong. Learn to do it. It is a life skill.

This is true, but in the private sector you aren't forced to be there. It is true that your boss can be a dick and waste your time. But you are getting paid for it, and if you don't like it you can leave. In public schools, you cannot simply leave, and you are not paid to be there.

True, but at the age of 16, at least in my state, you can walk out and never go back, of course you would basically be jobless and be an unproductive citizen to society, but if one chooses to leave, then by all means leave, the only people that will care is the welfare office who will have to approve an application to an uneducated citizen. Also if the "public school" environment is not your thing, then get an educated from home. Nope, it isn't going to be as educational, but if you wish to leave school then do that. OR you can do what my friend did, when he was in middle school he decided he didn't want to go to school, he decided to be home schooled, and since then has not done anything related to school (he hasn't done school work in years). Could he get in trouble? Yeah, but its his life that he has thrown away, I mean who wants to hire someone who doesn't even have high school education, heck you can barely get a job with just a high school education. For those who say you get payed at a job so you can take the forceful nature of a boss, public school may not pay you, but it will help you get a paying job in the future.

The last thing we need in this country is another Welfare Rat, anyone who drops out of high school is just that, unless they are the very few who invent something that people will use/buy.