Posts by Betty Wood54

urbantinker8 said:Absolutely.
I personally sat through all those lectures and workshops at the School for Life in Rezija with my own two eyes and ears, and I have to say, it was quite an experience. For my specific subject, they kept "recommending" this approach where we were supposed to let the kids just dive in and start investigating everything from scratch—you know, without any of the facts or information being "served" to them beforehand. I guess that’s the idea, though it felt a bit much at times.
It honestly feels like a crime when someone expects you to just absorb information instantly, without giving you two, five, or even twenty-five minutes to actually process it all first... I guess it’s just how the prefrontal cortex works, maybe.
I guess the School for Life in Rezija is really going all in on this whole research-based approach—you know, the stuff about collaborative learning, assessment as learning, formative assessment, and all those other buzzwords that sound great on paper. It’s all designed to keep the student right at the center of the process, which, if you think about it, sounds like a pretty wonderful idea in theory. I suppose the real question is whether the students would actually want that, though. It's one thing to design a system around them, but it's quite another if they don't actually care for it.🤣

I guess there isn't much to say about a rhino, really... just sort of sits there, existing in its own heavy, quiet way. It’s an interesting thought, I suppose, how something so massive can move with such a strange, deliberate stillness, though maybe I’m overthinking it. Just a rhino. driftingranger2 says:

Honestly, I've just about had it with Scandinavia.

I mean, I’m happy to sign off on what you’re saying, but I can’t say you’ve really brought anything new to the table—I feel like I’ve been writing about this exact same thing for over a decade now, ever since that whole Finnish school system model started creeping into our everyday conversations.🙄🙂

I guess, looking back over the last decade or so, I’ve started to get this lingering impression that we’re just continuously churning out idiots when it comes to the younger generation.
I guess it all comes down to that general lack of substance you see lately—you know, the total absence of actual lectures in the classroom, followed by a complete lack of real responsibilities, and then there’s the shortage of meaningful assignments. To top it all off, you have teachers just handing out grades like they're party favors, which I suppose doesn't leave much room for actual learning.
It feels like we’re constantly dealing with this cycle of suppressed frustration, where there’s just a fundamental lack of actual practice or real learning taking place. At the same time, we’re stuck staring at these massive, heavy textbooks that are absolutely bloated with useless illustrations and poorly written text that makes no sense. Most students end up just checking out entirely, or they somehow manage to scrape by with a decent grade at the end despite the mess.

I mean, I’m definitely signing off on this, too, though I feel like I’ve been beating this same drum here for over a decade now, and honestly, God only knows how many strikes or bans I’ve racked up just for sticking to my guns on this subject. 🥳
Well, I guess if you say so, then I suppose it must be true.

I’m actually quite curious about what specifically strikes you as "interesting" here, and if you had to choose, which textbook do you think works better? 🍿

I feel like Reškovac is just posturing, honestly. He reminds me a bit of someone like Nikola Jokić, in a sense.
Even though Kalin’s textbook is practically as old as the Bible, I think it’s a hundred times clearer and more accessible for a high schooler than anything Reškovac puts out.
It seems to me that Reškovac is trying to force this kind of inductive learning without providing any foundational groundwork first.
Kalin moves deductively, but he actually explains the context first, which makes it much easier to interpret the actual philosophical texts later on.

A similar thing happened with the American literature curriculum: they shifted from a chronological concept to a thematic one, which, in my opinion, is ultimate nonsense.
Kids today don't really grasp which writer belongs to which period, or the characteristics of a specific literary era, or how historical concepts and events influenced certain literary movements... instead, they mostly just focus on... well, women characters in the works.
So they end up with this weird mashup ranging from Antigone to Judith, then Laura, all the way to Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina.
They don't really understand the connection beyond the fact that the main characters happen to be women, but I guess that's what's "in" now. 🙂
And, naturally, everything is read via summaries because, let's face it, who would be considered "normal" nowadays and actually sit down to read Tolstoy or Flaubert? Good luck with that. 🙂
It's just required reading to check a box. 🙂

What's interesting to me is precisely what you're saying. Back when my high school teacher decided to use that philosophy textbook during my senior year, I didn't really learn anything from it, even though it was much thicker—mostly because it's more of a reader full of excerpts rather than a cohesive guide.

I remember an excerpt from a Hegelian work; it's just not something you can read like a standard prose selection, especially if you don't have the entire history of philosophy under your belt. You can't really read it in isolation, either, without the rest of the work.

So, in practice, everyone in class just has to pretend they understand it, "interpreting" it like it's some piece of literature rather than a technical work where every single word carries a very specific, precise meaning.

urbantinker8 said:Absolutely.
I personally sat through all those lectures and workshops at the School for Life in Rezija with my own two eyes and ears, and I have to say, it was quite an experience. For my specific subject, they kept "recommending" this approach where we were supposed to let the kids just dive in and start investigating everything from scratch—you know, without any of the facts or information being "served" to them beforehand. I guess that’s the idea, though it felt a bit much at times.
It honestly feels like a crime when someone expects you to just absorb information instantly, without giving you two, five, or even twenty-five minutes to actually process it all first... I guess it’s just how the prefrontal cortex works, maybe.
I guess the School for Life in Rezija is really going all in on this whole research-based approach—you know, the stuff about collaborative learning, assessment as learning, formative assessment, and all those other buzzwords that sound great on paper. It’s all designed to keep the student right at the center of the process, which, if you think about it, sounds like a pretty wonderful idea in theory. I suppose the real question is whether the students would actually want that, though. It's one thing to design a system around them, but it's quite another if they don't actually care for it.🤣

I guess there isn't much to say about a rhino, really... just sort of sits there, existing in its own heavy, quiet way. It’s an interesting thought, I suppose, how something so massive can move with such a strange, deliberate stillness, though maybe I’m overthinking it. Just a rhino. driftingranger2 says:

Honestly, I've just about had it with Scandinavia.

I mean, I’m happy to sign off on what you’re saying, but I can’t say you’ve really brought anything new to the table—I feel like I’ve been writing about this exact same thing for over a decade now, ever since that whole Finnish school system model started creeping into our everyday conversations.🙄🙂

I guess, looking back over the last decade or so, I’ve started to get this lingering impression that we’re just continuously churning out idiots when it comes to the younger generation.
I guess it all comes down to that general lack of substance you see lately—you know, the total absence of actual lectures in the classroom, followed by a complete lack of real responsibilities, and then there’s the shortage of meaningful assignments. To top it all off, you have teachers just handing out grades like they're party favors, which I suppose doesn't leave much room for actual learning.
It feels like we’re constantly dealing with this cycle of suppressed frustration, where there’s just a fundamental lack of actual practice or real learning taking place. At the same time, we’re stuck staring at these massive, heavy textbooks that are absolutely bloated with useless illustrations and poorly written text that makes no sense. Most students end up just checking out entirely, or they somehow manage to scrape by with a decent grade at the end despite the mess.

I mean, I’m definitely signing off on this, too, though I feel like I’ve been beating this same drum here for over a decade now, and honestly, God only knows how many strikes or bans I’ve racked up just for sticking to my guns on this subject. 🥳
Well, I guess if you say so, then I suppose it must be true.

I’m actually quite curious about what specifically strikes you as "interesting" here, and if you had to choose, which textbook do you think works better? 🍿

I feel like Reškovac is just posturing, honestly. He reminds me a bit of someone like Nikola Jokić, in a sense.
Even though Kalin’s textbook is practically as old as the Bible, I think it’s a hundred times clearer and more accessible for a high schooler than anything Reškovac puts out.
It seems to me that Reškovac is trying to force this kind of inductive learning without providing any foundational groundwork first.
Kalin moves deductively, but he actually explains the context first, which makes it much easier to interpret the actual philosophical texts later on.

A similar thing happened with the American literature curriculum: they shifted from a chronological concept to a thematic one, which, in my opinion, is ultimate nonsense.
Kids today don't really grasp which writer belongs to which period, or the characteristics of a specific literary era, or how historical concepts and events influenced certain literary movements... instead, they mostly just focus on... well, women characters in the works.
So they end up with this weird mashup ranging from Antigone to Judith, then Laura, all the way to Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina.
They don't really understand the connection beyond the fact that the main characters happen to be women, but I guess that's what's "in" now. 🙂
And, naturally, everything is read via summaries because, let's face it, who would be considered "normal" nowadays and actually sit down to read Tolstoy or Flaubert? Good luck with that. 🙂
It's just required reading to check a box. 🙂

Uh, uh, I'm just glad I finished my schooling before all that started.

Regarding teaching methods, I find the philosophy curriculum for high school seniors to be quite an interesting subject. On one hand, there’s the textbook by Boris Kalin, which follows a strictly historical approach—essentially just tracing the timeline of philosophy from the ancient era forward. On the other hand, you have Tomislav Reškovac’s textbook, which utilizes a more problem-based framework. In that version, the book is organized into chapters centered around specific philosophical dilemmas, and then within each topic, you'll find various texts from philosophers spanning different eras.

Susan James said:I think people are confusing old-school dictation with actual engagement, like storytelling or getting kids involved in discussions during the lesson. It makes me sad when teachers treat those two things as the same thing. Instead of meaningful interaction, they swap it out for "collaborative learning," where kids just sit there reading a textbook and trying to figure things out alone before the teacher quizzes them. 👎

And honestly, forget about what they're doing in Scandinavia.
Has anyone ever stopped to wonder why Sweden imports our doctors and ITevcc professionals? Has anyone asked why they’re constantly facing a shortage of experts? Or why they’re okay with such massive waves of migration?
Has anyone wondered why major tech companies in the US are dominated by talent from India and Pakistan?
Why are Japan and China moving ahead so fast?
Why do we look at Americans (with their three core subjects throughout school) or Scandinavians as role models when they mostly just focus on philosophy? Though, to be fair, those kids at least get some hands-on experience since they learn manual skills starting in preschool, which prevents them from feeling totally frustrated early on.

But generally speaking, looking back over the last ten years, I feel like we're just producing kids who struggle to function.
It comes from a lack of actual instruction, a lack of accountability, a lack of homework, and then handing out grades like candy.
We take away their ability to deal with frustration, we cut back on practice and studying, yet we still have these massive textbooks filled with pictures and terrible writing—and most kids either check out completely or somehow end up as honor roll students anyway.

Well, then. To start things off:
I was reading through some recent business reports, and it really got me thinking about how we handle our work-life balance here in the States. It’s one of those things that seems simple on paper, but when you actually dig into the data, it gets pretty complicated. Apparently, there's this study by Expedia showing that American workers, on average, don't even use ten of their allotted paid vacation days. I mean, I guess that makes sense given how much the culture here pushes the whole "hustle" mentality, but it still feels a bit heavy. We're all so busy trying to stay ahead that we forget to actually step away. And it leads to a weird paradox, doesn't it? You'd think if people were taking more breaks, they'd be sharper, but the numbers suggest otherwise. In fact, the US has the lowest productivity among G-7 nations. It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, really. Maybe we aren't resting enough, or maybe we're just working inefficiently because we're too burnt out to focus. I suppose it's a bit of both. It's definitely something worth looking into more deeply, perhaps even checking out the OECD Compendium of Productivity Indicators to see how we stack up against everyone else. But for now, I guess my takeaway is just to try and actually use my PTO. It might be more productive than I realize.

An interesting study just came out from IBM, an employability assessment firm, and the results are a bit of a wake-up call. It turns out that only about 4.77 percent of candidates actually possess the ability to write correct logic for a program—which, I suppose, is really just the bare minimum requirement for any kind of programming role. It makes you wonder, though, about how we got here. Maybe the training isn't quite hitting the mark, or perhaps the standards have shifted in ways we haven't fully realized yet. Regardless, those numbers seem incredibly low.

Large companies are essentially massive corporations, and if someone is absolutely killing it there—whatever that looks like in practice—it just means they’ve mastered that specific corporate culture. It involves a certain kind of maneuvering, I guess. Like, once you climb the ladder to a management position, you start hiring people who you feel are "your" kind of people, or at least people who fit your specific vibe. That sort of thing.

I’ve been hearing this firsthand lately, but it seems like the caste system from India is starting to bleed into those massive IT corporations here in the States.
It seems like we’re looking at some pretty heavy data regarding how much time people actually take off from work. I was reading this piece about how many vacation days go unused, and it really makes you think about our work culture here in the States. According to findings from Expedia, American workers, on average, don't even use ten of their paid vacation days. It’s a bit startling, I guess. You’d think with all the talk about burnout and mental health, people would be rushing to hit those PTO limits, but maybe there's just this unspoken pressure to stay glued to the desk. The article points out that, in fact, the US has the lowest productivity among G-7 nations. It feels a bit counterintuitive, doesn't it? One might assume that working more hours would lead to higher output, but perhaps the lack of rest is actually what's dragging us down. If you're constantly running on fumes, you aren't exactly performing at your peak. Maybe we're just working harder, not smarter. I don't know, it's a complex issue, for sure. It's worth considering whether we should be prioritizing downtime if we actually want to get things done efficiently.
It seems like I’ve stumbled upon an interesting piece from ZDNet regarding the shifting landscape in Silicon Valley. It really makes you wonder about the long-term implications of how tech giants are restructuring their workforce. I was reading through the details, and I can't help but feel that we are seeing a massive pivot in how corporate culture is being handled in the States. There’s a certain tension there between the old way of doing things—that high-growth, "burn the midnight oil" mentality—and this newer, more cautious approach that seems to be taking hold. Maybe it’s just a seasonal correction? Or perhaps the era of unchecked expansion is finally hitting a wall. I guess it's hard to say for sure without seeing how the next few quarters play out, but the momentum definitely feels different lately. It’s a lot to process, honestly. One might argue that the industry is maturing, though I suppose "maturing" is often just a polite way of saying things are getting a bit more stagnant. Regardless, it's certainly worth keeping an eye on.

Susan James said:I think people are confusing old-school dictation with actual engagement, like storytelling or getting kids involved in discussions during the lesson. It makes me sad when teachers treat those two things as the same thing. Instead of meaningful interaction, they swap it out for "collaborative learning," where kids just sit there reading a textbook and trying to figure things out alone before the teacher quizzes them. 👎

And honestly, forget about what they're doing in Scandinavia.
Has anyone ever stopped to wonder why Sweden imports our doctors and ITevcc professionals? Has anyone asked why they’re constantly facing a shortage of experts? Or why they’re okay with such massive waves of migration?
Has anyone wondered why major tech companies in the US are dominated by talent from India and Pakistan?
Why are Japan and China moving ahead so fast?
Why do we look at Americans (with their three core subjects throughout school) or Scandinavians as role models when they mostly just focus on philosophy? Though, to be fair, those kids at least get some hands-on experience since they learn manual skills starting in preschool, which prevents them from feeling totally frustrated early on.

But generally speaking, looking back over the last ten years, I feel like we're just producing kids who struggle to function.
It comes from a lack of actual instruction, a lack of accountability, a lack of homework, and then handing out grades like candy.
We take away their ability to deal with frustration, we cut back on practice and studying, yet we still have these massive textbooks filled with pictures and terrible writing—and most kids either check out completely or somehow end up as honor roll students anyway.

It seems like the US just isn't making much headway lately. Honestly, we haven't even really recovered from that massive real estate bubble burst back in the 90s, I guess.The concept of a "Lost Decade" is such a heavy, sobering thing to think about. It’s that period where an entire economy just... stalls. You look at history and see these long stretches where growth hits a wall, stagnation sets in, and it feels like the momentum everyone was banking on just evaporates overnight. I guess you could say the engine stalled, but instead of a quick jumpstart, the whole car just sat idling in the driveway for years. It usually starts with a massive bubble bursting—think of those wild real estate or stock market surges that feel unstoppable until they aren't. Once that bubble pops, you're left dealing with a mountain of bad debt and a sudden, sharp loss of confidence. People stop spending, businesses stop investing, and suddenly, the whole system enters this weird, sluggish limbo. It isn't always a dramatic crash, either; sometimes it's just a slow, agonizing grind where nothing seems to move forward. I suspect it’s incredibly difficult for a society to recover once that sense of optimism is gone. Even when the numbers start looking better on paper, the psychological weight of those lost years lingers. It makes me wonder how much of a nation's future is tied to its ability to maintain that collective belief in progress. If you lose that, you might find yourself staring down a very long, very quiet decade.Their wages have just been sitting there, completely stagnant, for twenty years now. I guess it’s hard to wrap my head around that kind of stagnation.

It’s a heavy subject, but I suppose we have to face it: the US has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. On top of that, the work culture here is just incredibly toxic. It feels like everyone is constantly burnt out.It’s actually quite fascinating how much work needs to be done regarding our approach to labor. I was just reading this piece about how productivity levels are shifting, and it really makes you think. According to data from Expedia, American workers on average don't use 10 of their paid vacation days. It seems like there's this unspoken pressure to just keep grinding, even when you're clearly burnt out. In fact, the US has the lowest productivity among G-7 nations, which is a bit of a wake-up call, isn't it? You would think that working more hours would lead to better results, but the math just doesn't seem to add up that way. Maybe we've been looking at efficiency all wrong. Perhaps taking that extra time off isn't a luxury, but a necessity if we want to actually get things done effectively. I guess it's worth reconsidering how we balance the hustle with actual rest.)

According to a government survey from 2016, nearly a quarter of American companies actually require their employees to clock more than 80 hours of overtime every single month. I suppose the most frustrating part is that those extra hours often go completely unpaid.

It seems like Americans aren't really taking enough time off, either. I mean, according to a study by Expedia, American workers on average didn't use 10 of their paid vacation days. And, I guess, about 63 percent of American respondents actually felt guilty just for using the time they were allotted. It's a bit much, isn't it? Maybe we all just need to learn how to unplug.

But honestly, putting in endless hours at the office doesn't always equate to getting more done. It’s kind of a misconception, I guess. In fact, the US has the lowest productivity among G-7 nations, if you look at the data from the OECD Compendium of Productivity Indicators.

Brandon Newman95 said:This is coming from someone who actually started school at six because there weren't enough kids enrolling back then. You know, during those "dark ages." My kid was physically big, sure, but everything else seemed fine. Well, not really. We missed dyslexia, dysgraphia, motor skill issues... all of it. I read fast, so cognitive delays didn't catch anyone's eye. I should have listened to my gut as a mother. Now, with a kid in high school, it's way too late to fix it.

But honestly, times aren't that dark anymore. From what I hear, the specialists in the public preschool systems are actually quite good now, and parents can always just take their kids to a private speech therapist if they need to. So, I don't really think many children will slip through the cracks like that today.

Daniel Chase13 said:Kids end up picking up nonsense from all sorts of people—not just certain teachers or professors, but even some religious studies instructors too.

Unfortunately, that’s just one of those unavoidable realities when you're dealing with human beings.

No single subject should be stripped from the curriculum just because some educators—regardless of what they teach—let out some foolish comments in front of their students. That includes religious education, even if it's just an elective.

Goodness, listen, that religious education textbook was actually written and approved by the American Catholic Conference. We aren't talking about "some random teachers" or the "human factor" here; this represents the official stance.

It's pretty wild that CNN is still airing commercials for the "School of Hard Knocks." LOL

Jason Morgan said:"Most"? That's a stretch. It’s really just the Law and Business schools where they force you to show up simply because there aren't enough chairs in the lecture halls.
In my experience, you could count the number of professors who actually tolerated absences on one hand—and that’s including people I’ve heard from over at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins, and even the engineering departments. You were basically allowed three absences per semester.
Before these reforms, you could practically skip whenever you felt like it (unless it was a lab). Honestly, I don't even want to get into a full-blown debate about it; his passive-aggressive tone and that constant facepalming are enough to give me high blood pressure.

Speaking from direct experience at the engineering school, that isn't really how it works anymore, especially since around 2012 when things started reverting to the old ways (like bringing back strict deadlines and ditching those weird bell curve grading systems). Before that, participation and lecture attendance were mandatory points for almost every single course. Now, there might be a handful of classes—maybe five to ten—where that applies, and even then, those points don't usually carry over to the final exam. I'm fairly certain things were more rigorous before the big educational shifts, mostly because labs were held weekly with the same TA every single time.

I'm guessing you attended UC Berkeley; I haven't been there myself, but from what I've gathered through conversation, things were likely similar before the restructuring. I highly doubt professors suddenly decided to start requiring attendance out of nowhere when nobody used to enforce it before.

Jason Morgan said:Well, at most American universities since the credit reform... yes, they do.

Most of my colleagues conduct this kind of research independently through anonymous end-of-year surveys or by checking in with the eighth graders.

Not really. Most colleges didn't actually change that much when the new academic structure was implemented. It’s mostly just a 3+2 setup now, and they introduced those standard credit hours. The professors who used to demand attendance still demand it, and the ones who didn't, well, they don't. It's pretty much the same thing, I guess.

Jacob Lopez2 said:I honestly don't get this. It is blatantly obvious that this comes down to whoever is running the school rather than any national policy, considering my first grader's classroom already has both a whiteboard and a smartboard. It is truly pathetic that equipment quality depends on the individual commitment of certain teachers or principals instead of there being uniform standards for all public schools across the country. Absolutely disgraceful.

It’s probably tough for standards to be identical across all public schools, since school funding relies quite heavily on local municipalities and city governments rather than just the Department of Education.

mistydrifter55 said:People above were mentioning how parents don't protest.

Actually, a massive number of parents did push back against those "clerical reforms" once upon a time.

But here's the kicker: parents aren't even consulted. Period. The experts call the shots.
Parents are essentially irrelevant in this process.
So, what's the point in blaming parents for staying quiet when they aren't even given a seat at the table?
☕

I'm not quite sure how your example above relates to this, honestly. Keeping religious education on the curriculum is a school obligation that stems from a political decision. The teaching professionals aren't asked for their input; they just carry out directives handed down from the top.

At the end of the day, religious studies is an elective in the school system, and the school asks whether or not you want your child to participate. As far as the church is concerned, they don't really care because they have no direct link to the school administration.

mistydrifter55 said:What is all this yapping about? 🤣

At my local school, at least back when we were enrolling, nobody ever bothered to ask if we wanted religious studies held on campus or over at a church.

It was just a checkbox on the registration form: do you want religious education, extra German classes, or nothing at all?

Basically, nobody asks you anything.
Parents aren't even consulted on where those religious classes should actually take place.
So, what kind of "voting" are you people talking about if nobody is even allowed to speak up against the established rules?

Well, I suppose no school asks because the public school curriculum and the parish-run programs are two totally separate things. The school is required to offer religious studies, and they basically just ask if you want to opt into that specific class or not. But as for the church-organized stuff, the school really doesn't have anything to do with it; that’s entirely up to the local parish.

Lawrence Torres56 said:Well, it’s honestly no surprise when you look at the track record, isn't it? Like, about a decade ago, they went ahead and dropped anatomy as a prerequisite for medical school just to make it easier for high schoolers to get in. But in doing that, they basically screwed over the students already in specialized vocational programs who spend five years studying specific subjects—they made it impossible for them to bridge that gap! And we're talking about a country that's constantly whining about having zero budget for education, yet somehow finds plenty of money to throw away on "re-teaching the basics" instead of actually investing that cash into advanced training and upgrading what people already know... it's a total drain on the budget.
It’s the exact same story over at the tech colleges; for them, it seems more important that a kid knows American history or English than actually knowing the core subject matter.🤣
To me, it just feels like in this country, having the right piece of paper matters way more than actually knowing what you're doing.

I can't believe some of the nonsense I'm reading here. It's honestly incredible. This is just pure speculation without any basis in reality.

First off, saying English and American history aren't as important as English and American history makes zero sense. For admission to >, 320 points come directly from high school grades. Then, 80 points are based on the average grade of core subjects on the national exams, where the difficulty level of English or American history doesn't even change the point value. Those 80 points are the only place where language and history matter, and even then, math is factored in, so it's actually a very small portion. After that, you have 600 points left, with 360 coming from AP Calculus and 240 from Physics.

As for suggesting that what you learn in a vocational high school counts as "technical expertise" in the context of >, that’s just laughable. > is a university, plain and simple, and things are done at a university level. Technical subjects are covered much faster and in far greater detail than anything in high school. If you compared the two, the high school curriculum wouldn't even look like a basic outline compared to the college courses. Plus, the mathematical tools used in high school are extremely limited compared to university-level math, so it’s perfectly logical that high school subjects can't be compared to college work. A vocational high school is designed to train students to become skilled tradespeople, electricians, and so on, whereas a university is meant to educate engineers and scientists.

But what's even funnier to me is how you—who likely haven't even brushed against computer science or electrical engineering at a higher level in your life—think you know more about "the field" than people who hold professorships and have dedicated their entire lives to it.

And that whole bit about anatomy being a prerequisite also smells fishy to me. Based on that logic, it would imply that before ten years ago, you could only get into med school through health or medical vocational schools, which I am absolutely certain isn't true.

I won't even bother commenting on the part about wasting money on retraining people from scratch.

Karen Richardson3 said:Honestly, I don't see any big issue with theologians teaching high school philosophy—especially since, from what I recall, the curriculum is mostly just a history of philosophical thought anyway. I mean, what's the actual difference in training between them and a standard religious instructor?
Is that old-school rulebook still being enforced? Some stuffy, bureaucratic 😁

In my opinion, theologians are actually better educated than most students graduating from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and at the end of the day, there’s a huge amount of overlap between theology and philosophy. They're basically just religious philosophers, if you catch my drift. 😁

Looking back at my own experience, one single teacher used to cover philosophy, logic, sociology, and ethics for me in high school. I can't even remember if she had a degree in one of those or all of them.

It was clearly either too expensive or just impossible for the school to hire separate specialists for every subject, so she probably just filled her schedule that way.

I get why this creates a headache for philosophy majors, though, because a religious instructor could easily fill their roster by teaching both religion and philosophy.

Also, I'm not quite sure how you're using the term "specialist." Back in college in a city like Chicago, they used to call students who were only majoring in a single subject like American literature "specialists," whereas double majors weren't labeled that way. 🤣

Anyway, I had this really interesting debate recently with a friend of mine who's a teacher. He thinks it's ridiculous that teachers are expected to teach *only* their specific major. We were talking about restructuring classes, cutting hours for some subjects, and adding more for others.
He believes that even if a major reform happened, teachers should be allowed to teach subjects outside their primary degree.
And honestly, I'm on his side. High school education—even middle school—doesn't really demand the kind of deep, hyper-specialized knowledge you'd find in a PhD program.
That’s why I think the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences is organized so poorly; they treat pedagogical training like a chore you just have to get through, similar to gym or art class, while focusing almost everything on niche, granular details that you will NEVER actually use in a classroom.
If I were studying history, for example, I feel like half of it wouldn't even apply to me. 😁

I know I'm jumping around here, but this ties right into the whole school system reform conversation.
At one point in college, I had a course on history taught by a Franciscan monk from a monastery, and he was hands-down one of my best professors.
He taught me about the Middle Ages during that teenage phase where I was, you know, super anti-Church and all that.
The fact that he was a monk didn't stop him from delivering an incredible lecture. He was a theologian who had earned his doctorate in history from one of "their" universities.

I also had a political science professor teach one of my courses.

So, if it works at the university level, why shouldn't it work in K-12 schools?

Is this restriction strictly limited to this one subject, or is this kind of flexibility allowed for other disciplines too?

Are you suggesting a theologian might understand philosophy better than someone who earned a philosophy degree from Harvard University?

I assume you're thinking of that history of philosophy textbook by Cali (or something similar) with the labyrinth design on the cover. That one is strictly designed as a historical survey.

But now there's this other, much thicker and larger textbook by Tom Reiss ( that some schools—mine included—actually use. It’s structured completely differently. Instead of just a chronological history, it’s broken down into several units, each covering a specific branch of philosophy. If I recall correctly, the first section was an overview of philosophy in general, the second dealt with God, and then there were sections on politics, ethics, epistemology, and maybe a few others. In each unit, you're presented with various texts from philosophers across different eras and perspectives. Below those texts are questions meant to guide your analysis. For instance, I seem to remember there were texts representing both pro-life and pro-choice views regarding abortion. In the section about God, they included pieces by Richard Dawkins, as well as Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant. At the end

Karen Richardson3 said:Honestly, I don't see any big issue with theologians teaching high school philosophy—especially since, from what I recall, the curriculum is mostly just a history of philosophical thought anyway. I mean, what's the actual difference in training between them and a standard religious instructor?
Is that old-school rulebook still being enforced? Some stuffy, bureaucratic 😁

In my opinion, theologians are actually better educated than most students graduating from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and at the end of the day, there’s a huge amount of overlap between theology and philosophy. They're basically just religious philosophers, if you catch my drift. 😁

Looking back at my own experience, one single teacher used to cover philosophy, logic, sociology, and ethics for me in high school. I can't even remember if she had a degree in one of those or all of them.

It was clearly either too expensive or just impossible for the school to hire separate specialists for every subject, so she probably just filled her schedule that way.

I get why this creates a headache for philosophy majors, though, because a religious instructor could easily fill their roster by teaching both religion and philosophy.

Also, I'm not quite sure how you're using the term "specialist." Back in college in a city like Chicago, they used to call students who were only majoring in a single subject like American literature "specialists," whereas double majors weren't labeled that way. 🤣

Anyway, I had this really interesting debate recently with a friend of mine who's a teacher. He thinks it's ridiculous that teachers are expected to teach *only* their specific major. We were talking about restructuring classes, cutting hours for some subjects, and adding more for others.
He believes that even if a major reform happened, teachers should be allowed to teach subjects outside their primary degree.
And honestly, I'm on his side. High school education—even middle school—doesn't really demand the kind of deep, hyper-specialized knowledge you'd find in a PhD program.
That’s why I think the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences is organized so poorly; they treat pedagogical training like a chore you just have to get through, similar to gym or art class, while focusing almost everything on niche, granular details that you will NEVER actually use in a classroom.
If I were studying history, for example, I feel like half of it wouldn't even apply to me. 😁

I know I'm jumping around here, but this ties right into the whole school system reform conversation.
At one point in college, I had a course on history taught by a Franciscan monk from a monastery, and he was hands-down one of my best professors.
He taught me about the Middle Ages during that teenage phase where I was, you know, super anti-Church and all that.
The fact that he was a monk didn't stop him from delivering an incredible lecture. He was a theologian who had earned his doctorate in history from one of "their" universities.

I also had a political science professor teach one of my courses.

So, if it works at the university level, why shouldn't it work in K-12 schools?

Is this restriction strictly limited to this one subject, or is this kind of flexibility allowed for other disciplines too?

I don't see anything controversial about that. Since logic and ethics are fundamental branches of philosophy, it’s perfectly normal for people with philosophy degrees to teach them. There isn't really a specific degree that makes you solely a professor of ethics or logic. Plus, it's pretty common for people to double major in philosophy and sociology, so philosophy professors often end up teaching sociology as well. It happens quite frequently, I guess.