What's the point of required reading?

It’s an absolute grind, but at least there’s a paycheck at the end of it. Even if the job itself was soul-crushing—like spending your life sewing baby clothes or something equally tedious—it would at least be compensated. 😁

Linda Price5 said:It’s an absolute grind, but at least there’s a paycheck at the end of it. Even if the job itself was soul-crushing—like spending your life sewing baby clothes or something equally tedious—it would at least be compensated. 😁

If something is a total drag, then I suppose it just is.
For me, the money part of this whole thing is pretty much secondary, I guess.🤷
Do you really think people would actually pick up a required reading book more often if they were paid per title or based on how many pages they managed to get through?😁
I mean, that’s about the only way left to shake things up, really. Maybe then everyone would suddenly start obsessively worshipping Camus, Sartre, and Kafka all at once.🎉

Larry Walker24 said:urbantinker8 - teen read recommendation - Miriam Preisler's "Dark chocolate" is actually killer

I tried reading that "Momo" fairy tale in German and honestly? Total garbage.

urbantinker8?

Peter Doyle2 said:I think the main reason there's such a massive gap between what kids can actually handle and the unrealistic expectations placed on them at ages 7 or 8—expectations that don't even make sense developmentally—is primarily due to our American school system.
We start mandatory schooling way too late compared to the rest of the world. Even back when I was pregnant with my first, people were already talking about shifting to a 9-year elementary model that would have just barely caught me in time. Yeah, right. Then there was all this talk about implementing daily mandatory sessions in preschools, not just standard daycare, but something more structured. That didn't happen either.
When you look at how easily delays are brushed off, it turns out some eighth graders are still struggling with basic spelling. Preschool isn't enough for a child who doesn't attend daycare, and since there’s no universal standard for preparation among daycares, kids enter school with wildly different skill levels depending, well, on luck. In the daycare center where I worked before moving to the States, we were strictly forbidden from doing any direct instruction—I used to read books to the kids under the radar because I wasn't allowed to "gather" them for lessons. We couldn't even put things on the tables because that was seen as being too pushy; the idea was that a child should just pick whatever they want from the shelf. Now, imagine a kid coming from an environment like that, having no concept of structure or letters, walking into a classroom where most other kids had much better preparation and might even be able to quote stories already. Of course they're falling behind, and it's not because of a diagnosis or the parents or the kid—it's a systemic failure.
If you look at other countries, especially the more developed ones, almost all of them start some form of mandatory schooling much earlier. Britons have their prep schools starting around age 3 or 4, I believe? My daughter's kindergarten started when she was 5; they mostly played, and the classroom felt more like a playroom with activity centers and toys, but they were working on letters and math patterns, and by the end of the year, they were reading very simple picture books through repetition. By age 6, she was basically doing what American first graders do. The point is, the kids aren't overwhelmed, and they reach those milestones gradually. Meanwhile, in America, there's this expectation that a seven-year-old should suddenly be reading literature halfway through the second semester, even if they were a total non-reader in the fall.

The Swiss have one of the best education systems in the world, and they get kids started at seven.

Linda Price5 said:It’s an absolute grind, but at least there’s a paycheck at the end of it. Even if the job itself was soul-crushing—like spending your life sewing baby clothes or something equally tedious—it would at least be compensated. 😁

Well, I suppose you also deal with things you hate during high school just to get a diploma. 😬

urbantinker8 said:If something is a total drag, then I suppose it just is.
For me, the money part of this whole thing is pretty much secondary, I guess.🤷
Do you really think people would actually pick up a required reading book more often if they were paid per title or based on how many pages they managed to get through?😁
I mean, that’s about the only way left to shake things up, really. Maybe then everyone would suddenly start obsessively worshipping Camus, Sartre, and Kafka all at once.🎉

Look, teenagers love them—I loved them too. It’s pure teenage angst fuel, honestly.

Salinger is fine since he's actually readable. Flaubert was pretty big back in the day, and things like Nora or the Russians were accepted in a "whatever" kind of way, I guess.

It’s sad to say, but the biggest issue with our American school reading lists is all those old classics about settlers and pioneers.

And the plays? They're often taught so poorly—it wasn't until college that I actually figured out how to read Shakespeare without wanting to die. But hey, better late than never.

Christian Wilson28 said:The Swiss have one of the best education systems in the world, and they get kids started at seven.

Well, actually, preschool and kindergarten (for 6-year-olds) have been mandatory there since August 2015. So, I guess all kids really do get the same head start—unlike here in the States.

Christian Wilson28 said:Look, teenagers love them—I loved them too. It’s pure teenage angst fuel, honestly.

Salinger is fine since he's actually readable. Flaubert was pretty big back in the day, and things like Nora or the Russians were accepted in a "whatever" kind of way, I guess.

It’s sad to say, but the biggest issue with our American school reading lists is all those old classics about settlers and pioneers.

And the plays? They're often taught so poorly—it wasn't until college that I actually figured out how to read Shakespeare without wanting to die. But hey, better late than never.

That seems to be a constant pattern. Even with history classes, nothing is more draining than studying American history.

The history of this region is basically just Canadian history—I don't know if they've scrubbed that from the curriculum yet, but we used to have a slice of world history, a slice of American history, and then a little bit of Canadian stuff tacked on because they were probably still hoping to snag that part for themselves, if you ask me.🤣

*The Little Prince* is cheesy—I'll give you that—but it's a sweet little book and can stay. *Jonathan Livingston Seagull*, though? Absolute garbage. Is that still on the required reading list?

Christian Wilson28 said:The history of this region is basically just Canadian history—I don't know if they've scrubbed that from the curriculum yet, but we used to have a slice of world history, a slice of American history, and then a little bit of Canadian stuff tacked on because they were probably still hoping to snag that part for themselves, if you ask me.🤣

*The Little Prince* is cheesy—I'll give you that—but it's a sweet little book and can stay. *Jonathan Livingston Seagull*, though? Absolute garbage. Is that still on the required reading list?

They still teach that extra history stuff too.

briskjackal5 said:You could even learn how to brew beer without ever stepping foot in a classroom, just like you could learn math. 😁

If there are side effects—like people losing interest in reading altogether, or avoiding the classics, or developing a total phobia of math—then the whole outcome ends up being negative.

I remember this one time at an SAT prep center where this person was just staring blankly at a basic middle school math problem, and it was like the explanations were just bouncing right off them. It wasn't because they lacked the brains or the talent, honestly. If they hadn't been forced into math classes all those years, they probably would've figured it out fine. But instead, all they learned from math class was that math is hard and that they're just bad at it. That’s a totally negative result after spending hours every week on it for twelve years. It's just... it's awful.

First of all, I don't think that's quite right. There were definitely things that person *did* master, so I guess you could say their net result was actually positive.
Maybe not as much as the kids who are naturally gifted, but still positive, I think.

Second, whatever you decide about their individual results, you're really only talking about that one specific person. You can't really apply that to the whole class or the entire community, right?

What do you mean by "Bane23"?

-briskjackal5

Of course they can. Carpentry has been around for millennia, whereas the modern American high school system is a relatively recent invention.

First off, that isn't really a result; it’s just a list of things that the individual managed to pass.

By "managed to pass," do you mean "barely scraped through a quiz or two" or "developed a lifelong habit of applying mathematics to real-world scenarios"?

Consider this: if a student spends an average of two hours a week on math, that adds up to roughly 2 hours × 54 weeks × 12 years. After those twelve years, all they have to show for it is knowing how many gallons of Sherwin-Williams paint to buy when repainting an apartment, checking if the local grocer is overcharging them, and memorizing the definition of a circle or the quadratic formula (by the way, when was the last time you actually used a quadratic equation in your daily life?). On top of that, they often end up with a deeper aversion to math, more mental resistance whenever they try to grasp a concept, and less motivation to learn than if they had never encountered it at all.

And you consider that a net positive outcome? Impressive logic.

How much of high school math do you actually use in your day-to-day life? Seriously—how are you applying logarithms, limits, or the volume of a pyramid?

Not for an entire class or community, though.

Sure, those are exceptions. On average, Americans are a highly literate and mathematically capable people who understand basic biology and can solve redox equations while they're cooking dinner.

What does "unknown" mean?

He's just a character from a classic folk song.

urbantinker8 said:If something is a total drag, then I suppose it just is.
For me, the money part of this whole thing is pretty much secondary, I guess.🤷
Do you really think people would actually pick up a required reading book more often if they were paid per title or based on how many pages they managed to get through?😁
I mean, that’s about the only way left to shake things up, really. Maybe then everyone would suddenly start obsessively worshipping Camus, Sartre, and Kafka all at once.🎉

Seriously, if someone told you, "this portion of your job is no longer being compensated," would you still be just as eager—or perhaps even less willing—to perform those duties?

Do you honestly think people would read classic literature more often if they had to pay per title and then proportionally based on how many pages they actually turned?😁

No, I believe we are living in 2019, and we should be exploring educational models that are far more relevant to life in the 21st century and more efficient than what we have now. The goal should be that after eight or twelve years, more people possess a broader toolkit to facilitate a higher quality of life, whatever that definition may be for the individual.

There is certainly still room for literature, mathematics, grammar, philosophy, and chemistry, but not within this idiotic "rote-memorize-repeat-forget" framework that is currently so highly valued.

Listen, for instance, to an episode of unknown's unknown, compare it to an average hour of history class, and tell me honestly who comes out on top.

there, it's not like we haven't tried that. maybe suddenly everyone would start hysterically worshiping Camus, Sartre, and Kafka.🎉

Neither of us is hysterically enamored with the most tedious aspects of our jobs, but we receive something in return (money).

If a student isn't attending school to actually educate themselves but merely to acquire a diploma, I don't see the issue if they decide to purchase one. 😁

Honestly, the whole system is just broken—it’s all about chasing paperwork. You go through all these hoops just to get one specific piece of paper. Even at my own dead-end job, the only way I can move up is if I go back to school to grab yet another credential. I mean, I’ve already got a decent collection of degrees from my time out West, but hey, if they want another one? Fine, let's find it.

The bureaucracy in this country is so incredibly obsessed with paperwork that I’m surprised the system hasn't developed blisters from all its own red tape.

Hey there! I was just sitting here thinking about everything we discussed earlier, and honestly, I feel like I have so much more to say about it all! It’s funny how things work out sometimes, isn't it? I guess I might be overthinking this, but I just can't help myself. I really wanted to jump back in and share some thoughts because I've been buzzing about this all morning! Anyway, hope you guys are having an absolutely wonderful day! kaže:
Of course it can! I mean, carpenters have been around for thousands of years, right? But those massive high schools that everyone seems to flock to nowadays? Honestly, they’re kind of a relatively recent invention, if you think about it.

Spot on. Totally true.
I mean, it just wasn't really doable back then, I guess... mostly because getting enough food was such a struggle, and honestly, we just didn't have any free time to breathe!
I mean, honestly, it feels like the sheer amount of info we’re all expected to know has just exploded lately, right? It’s kind of wild. Because everything is moving so fast, I guess there’s this much more intense pressure now to stay in school longer. Like, you can't just stop at a basic level anymore; there's such a huge need for more advanced degrees and extra schooling just to keep up with how much stuff there is to learn these days!

Back then, getting a decent education was... well, I guess you could say it was a total luxury. Just wasn't something everyone could just jump into, you know? It was definitely a privilege.

So, today’s election day, right? Everyone is out there casting their votes... I guess the whole "skip high school to just focus on learning how to sand wood" strategy isn't exactly winning many votes this year! Haha!

It could totally work. Honestly, it’s not even that crazy when you think about it—I mean, Americans aren't just some random number one for no reason, right? They actually have access to things that feels way closer to what we're looking for than anything else we've got.
And that actually played a huge part—like, a really massive part—in their success!

So, when you say "mastered" it... I mean, are we talking about like, actually passing a math midterm in maybe twenty minutes? Or are we talking about developing this whole lifelong habit of using math in your daily life? I guess it depends on how you look at it! Maybe both? Haha!

Neither one, nor the other. I mean, honestly? Neither.

I mean, honestly? This whole example feels a bit half-baked to me. It’s just way too vague, and I feel like people are spinning way too many wild theories out of it for a topic like this. It's probably overthinking things, I guess!

I mean, I’m pretty sure that even if it’s been ages since someone sat through fifth grade, seventh grade, or even high school, they can still actually use what they learned. I guess it's just because you mentioned there aren't any cognitive limitations holding them back!

I think he might have totally missed the mark on those percentages... or maybe the whole sense of proportion? Or honestly, I guess even the geometry part seems a bit off to me!
And honestly, I think it’d be super helpful to get a good look at the coordinate system and all those different curves too! It might make things way clearer, I guess.

I mean, I really think he pulled it off! He totally nailed it, I guess.

So, let’s do the math on this for a second. If a student spends, what, maybe two hours a week on math? So that’s like 2 hours times 54 weeks times 12 years of schooling. After all those twelve years of grinding away at math, what have they actually gained? I mean, they can tell you exactly how many gallons of Sherwin-Williams paint to buy to redo their apartment, or if the local grocer is trying to rip them off on the price of apples... but that's about it! Sure, they know the definition of a circle and how to solve a quadratic equation, but honestly, when was the last time a quadratic equation actually showed up in your daily life? Seriously, probably never!

I mean, let's be real here... most of that deep, theoretical stuff? It’s just not actually useful for the average person going about their daily life. I guess if you aren't working in a lab or something, you probably won't ever need half of it!

So, I guess what I’m trying to get at is... what's even the point behind all this? It feels like it's partly because, honestly, most people aren't really putting much actual knowledge into practice anyway. I mean, maybe that's just how it is, but it feels like a lot of effort for very little payoff! Whatever! I mean, honestly, anything at all! Just throw something my way and let's see where it goes!.
I mean, look, it’s not like it's strictly necessary. I wouldn't say it isn't useful—honestly, I think it could actually be pretty helpful for a lot of people—but, you know, it just isn't a total requirement. It's just one of those things!
Look, I mean, I actually laid out all those specific things he was studying, and it really seems like the material stuck with him. Plus, you were the one who pointed out those real-world applications yourself! Especially when it comes to math, it just makes sense.
I mean, I guess for all the other kinds of stuff out there, you probably won't even find nearly as many of them! Maybe they just aren't as common? Who knows! 😁

I mean, honestly? I think the smartest way to go about picking materials is to find that sweet spot—you know, finding a balance between what’s theoretically "unlikely to be used," general knowledge, and just straight-up practical application. Just because the "majority" of people aren't using something doesn't mean it's irrelevant on its own. It's definitely a factor to consider, sure, but it shouldn't be the only thing we look at. We really shouldn't just toss everything out just because it isn't widely used!
I mean, I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I really feel like it’s a bad move to raise a bunch of total idiots who decide they want to be carpenters back in fifth grade and then just... never grow out of it intellectually? Like, they just grab a hammer at twelve years old and that’s basically it for them. It feels a bit much, I guess!
And I mean, it’s not just about avoiding pure stupidity—society isn't built solely on its ability to turn a profit or manufacture stuff, you know? It has this whole culture behind it that goes way deeper than just economics.

Plus, as an society, we really want to nurture those people who can actually tackle the super complex stuff. And honestly, I think it’ll be pretty tough to make that happen if they don't even get through, say, our standard American middle school math curriculum.
Even the harder high school stuff. 😁

I guess those would just be the starting points for any real discussion about what we should be doing in schools.

And looking at it that way, I feel like the net effect of math classes for that individual was actually totally positive. Maybe your take on their aversion to it—or how much it messed things up for them—is a bit exaggerated or just off base? I mean, if we want to actually move forward as a country, we really ought to look at these net effects for society as a whole, rather than just focusing on one specific person.

Otherwise, the stuff that’s going to be more useful in everyday life—whether through social interaction or just general living—can actually be picked up through reading literature. Since we're already talking about it! 😁

They have an even bigger hatred for math now, more resistance whenever they try to grasp anything mathematical, and way less motivation to learn it than if they had never studied it at all.

And you think that's a net positive result? Wow, okay then.

No, that’s not really a "result" at all. That's just your perspective, which I think is partly right, partly a bit superficial, and partly just plain wrong. 😁

How much school math do you actually use in daily life? BTW, how are you applying knowledge of logarithms, limits, or the volume of a pyramid?

I chose to go to a prep school by my own choice. And honestly, none of that stuff I learned bothers me at all. I never once thought, "Man, I wish I knew that!" after graduating, though I do find myself thinking—relatively often, I guess 😁—"I wish I could remember this part better!"
If I were in certain college programs, I'd probably still be using everything I learned. For all sorts of subjects, from biology and art to math.
The fact that I didn't pick some of them was just my call.

If I hadn't gone through that education, I wouldn't have even had the choice to begin with; if we didn't have access to that kind of schooling, nobody in the US would be able to keep up with what comes next, specifically with the examples you mentioned. We'd basically have to shut down all the STEM colleges. 😁

Besides, I really feel like math develops abstract thinking and just exercises the brain in so many different ways all on its own.
And I guess the same goes for language, too.

-briskjackal5

Do you honestly believe an eighteen-year-old with genuine drive and focus wouldn't be able to master high school level math within a single year, even if they started from scratch?

So, I mean, his chances would be incredibly, incredibly slim. And that’s even if we ignore the fact that in this scenario, he’s staring down a massive mountain, which makes deciding whether to even start the climb way harder.

At MIT, you can expect about six hours of math a week, and even with a top-tier math professor, there’s just no way you’re going to breeze through a year's worth of material that easily. Students are in class, they're listening, and then they're still studying on their own.

If you also have to cram in the second, third, and fourth years of high school, the chances are basically zero. I mean, that person would have to be a total monomaniac by age 18—like, a monomaniac who spends five hours every single day, every single day of the week, doing nothing but math. No other subjects, nothing else. Just with a mentor guiding them along.

And even then, that might only bring the schedule closer to what things look like at MIT.
I'm being a bit conservative here because of the independent study aspect and the fact that a school year isn't quite a full calendar year. Plus, I didn't even factor in homework or studying outside of class hours (which is standard in traditional schooling), and honestly, trying to cram everything into one year straight isn't realistic anyway.

And we're talking about the level required for actual research in mathematics, which is roughly where an undertaking like this would aim.

In my head, I assumed middle school math was already fully mastered at a high level.

If even middle school hasn't been covered, then the answer is probably "no," and not even for another two years.
You really can't treat this like it's trivial. First, because the sheer volume of material takes up so much time; and second, because those school years provide that spaced repetition in math that you know is absolutely essential, the kind you get naturally over years of schooling.
And it’s not just about the knowledge itself, but the actual muscle memory and practice.
It’s hard to imagine someone just encountering math for the first time at 18, but I think it’s a huge handicap if that level of mastery is the end goal.

A lighter math program, average abilities, and a shaky grasp of middle school basics... none of that fits the "I'm suddenly super interested in math" path forward. Luckily, because that would have been even harder for me to estimate.😁

-Stipe

No, I am convinced that regardless of whether they were taught in fifth grade, seventh grade, or freshman year of high school, it remains a usable skillset. My reasoning is based simply on your own observation that there aren't any cognitive limitations at play here.

They grasped the basics of percentages, proportionality, and geometry.
And they can clearly navigate a coordinate system and various curves.

I believe those fundamentals have been mastered.

Personally, this looks like a pretty pathetic return on investment after spending 1,500 hours of one's life on a subject. It’s akin to studying math for eight hours a day for six months, only to walk away knowing how to plot the point (5, 1) on a graph or calculate basic proportions. Even Lana would achieve significantly more than this if she spent half a year applying herself alongside Klingor.

Linda Price5 said:

No, I am convinced that regardless of whether they were taught in fifth grade, seventh grade, or freshman year of high school, it remains a usable skillset. My reasoning is based simply on your own observation that there aren't any cognitive limitations at play here.

They grasped the basics of percentages, proportionality, and geometry.
And they can clearly navigate a coordinate system and various curves.

I believe those fundamentals have been mastered.

Personally, this looks like a pretty pathetic return on investment after spending 1,500 hours of one's life on a subject. It’s akin to studying math for eight hours a day for six months, only to walk away knowing how to plot the point (5, 1) on a graph or calculate basic proportions. Even Lana would achieve significantly more than this if she spent half a year applying herself alongside Klingor.

But hey, look at how much stuff people actually learn in an American elementary school English class during a whole year? 😁
Things just take time, I guess.

To you, those few math concepts we mentioned seem totally trivial because you handle them without even thinking about it now.
But maybe you're forgetting how much actual time and practice went into it—that's exactly why it feels easy; you mastered it a long time ago.

And the rest of the population actually has to go through this process and learn it.

Plus, if someone happens to grasp a specific topic faster or easier, they can move on to much tougher, more challenging problems.

I don't really know about Lana or what she would do in six months... do you really think if she focused *only* on math, starting from scratch, she'd be ahead? Maybe. But then she'd be missing the other 12 or 13 subjects.

-briskjackal5

Take a look at Lana over on those influencer pages and Instagram feeds in suburban Connecticut. 😬

Tara Westover was only seventeen when she stepped foot in a classroom for the first time; before that, aside from her brother teaching her how to read, she was essentially self-taught. Fast forward to today, and she’s in her early thirties with a PhD.

I’m not suggesting we neglect our children, but it’s clear that adults who actually *want* to learn are far more efficient than kids who are just being dragged along to chase a piece of paper.