I don’t think kids are mature enough to make great decisions.
Even most undergrad students are not informed enough to make great decisions. They may know what they want, but they often mistake how hard it will be to study something, or how fun it would be to work in a profession, or their chances of finding a good job.
On the other hand, the bureaucrats and politicians who do write school programs don’t always have the students’ best interest in mind. They may discount subjects they don’t understand well or aren’t interested in personally. They may make decisions for political reasons, like making school easier to raise graduation rates. And, of course, many fields of study are excellent indoctrination and covert political propaganda tools and are chosen mostly for these reasons.
On balance, I would trust students to influence their studies more than they do today, but I’m biased in favor of academically good students.
I see a lot of things like languages and music and literature as hobbies. It’s very unlikely you end up using these things in your career or life. They at least should largely be electives rather than requirements. In general, I have a bit of a disapproval for the humanities.
Isn’t that at odds with your desire to make students “more well rounded people”? If you think humanities aren’t valuable, all I can say is that most people disagree (me included). It’s a difference in values, and isn’t eclectic learning according to different values necessary to make a person well-rounded?
Also, and perhaps more importantly, most technical and scientific (i.e. non-humanities) subjects taught in school are also unlikely to be used by most people in most careers. Going purely by how many people actually use something they learned in later life, most mathematics should be an elective (especially geometry and trigonometry), as should natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) and general subjects like history, geology, most of geography and economics, etc. Do away with the humanities too, and what’s left for the core curriculum? You’d be back to the basics—reading, writing, and arithmetic.
Eg. don’t make kids memorize things, just have them understand the fundamental concepts. Memorizing details doesn’t help achieve goals a) or b).
I agree, understanding is much more important than memorizing. And memorized but poorly understood facts are usually forgotten later in life anyway.
However, most subjects do require memorization of a bunch of useful facts if they’re to be taught at all. The precise date of a battle isn’t important, but knowing who won and why it matters is.
I think that the basics of computer science should be a requirement. Same with the core ideas of economics, psychology and design (and probably some other things I’m not thinking of).
How many people do you think are going to use computer science (as opposed to programming), economics or psychology? I think very few are. Here too I feel this doesn’t align well with your desire to make things few people use electives.
It may be that you are projecting your own love of e.g. compsci and dislike of e.g. literature to others. But forcing all students to learn compsci is very unlikely to make more of them like it. On the contrary, people sometimes report hating subjects like history because they’re tainted by forced, badly conducted learning in school, even when they might have otherwise enjoyed them as adults.
I wonder. In this day and age, is film theory as relevant as literary theory? (As in, studying the techniques that filmmakers use to tell stories well that are unique to film, as opposed to those that are unique to prose or poetry.)
Even most undergrad students are not informed enough to make great decisions. They may know what they want, but they often mistake how hard it will be to study something, or how fun it would be to work in a profession, or their chances of finding a good job.
On the other hand, the bureaucrats and politicians who do write school programs don’t always have the students’ best interest in mind. They may discount subjects they don’t understand well or aren’t interested in personally. They may make decisions for political reasons, like making school easier to raise graduation rates. And, of course, many fields of study are excellent indoctrination and covert political propaganda tools and are chosen mostly for these reasons.
On balance, I would trust students to influence their studies more than they do today, but I’m biased in favor of academically good students.
Isn’t that at odds with your desire to make students “more well rounded people”? If you think humanities aren’t valuable, all I can say is that most people disagree (me included). It’s a difference in values, and isn’t eclectic learning according to different values necessary to make a person well-rounded?
Also, and perhaps more importantly, most technical and scientific (i.e. non-humanities) subjects taught in school are also unlikely to be used by most people in most careers. Going purely by how many people actually use something they learned in later life, most mathematics should be an elective (especially geometry and trigonometry), as should natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) and general subjects like history, geology, most of geography and economics, etc. Do away with the humanities too, and what’s left for the core curriculum? You’d be back to the basics—reading, writing, and arithmetic.
I agree, understanding is much more important than memorizing. And memorized but poorly understood facts are usually forgotten later in life anyway.
However, most subjects do require memorization of a bunch of useful facts if they’re to be taught at all. The precise date of a battle isn’t important, but knowing who won and why it matters is.
How many people do you think are going to use computer science (as opposed to programming), economics or psychology? I think very few are. Here too I feel this doesn’t align well with your desire to make things few people use electives.
It may be that you are projecting your own love of e.g. compsci and dislike of e.g. literature to others. But forcing all students to learn compsci is very unlikely to make more of them like it. On the contrary, people sometimes report hating subjects like history because they’re tainted by forced, badly conducted learning in school, even when they might have otherwise enjoyed them as adults.
I wonder. In this day and age, is film theory as relevant as literary theory? (As in, studying the techniques that filmmakers use to tell stories well that are unique to film, as opposed to those that are unique to prose or poetry.)
I would add computer/video game design theory.