Are schools killing critical thinking?

Donna Campbell6 said:Every kind of school out there basically works the same way—they just hand students these pre-packaged bundles of info, like it's some finished product from a factory. It’s all based on what we think we know right now in a specific field, which is usually already a little bit outdated, let's be real.
But honestly? It feels like schools are actually working against what knowledge is supposed to be. Real knowledge isn't something you can just "freeze" in place like that. Its whole vibe is to constantly question everything... and even to doubt itself. Or, well... more like seeing itself as just a temporary stepping stone toward something better and deeper down the road.
Instead, schools treat knowledge like it's set in stone, serving it up to students as this absolute truth you're just supposed to swallow whole without question. So where does that leave critical thinking? Nowhere, really.
I mean, it's hard to imagine a school functioning any other way. But doesn't that make them almost anti-scientific? They take something inherently dynamic and turn it into something totally static. And by teaching like that... aren't they just making people less sharp? What do you guys think?

I’d argue there’s a distinction between science as a dynamic process and "knowledge," which is static—the accumulated facts we've settled on so far. Science relies on that established knowledge as a foundation; otherwise, every new generation of researchers would be starting from zero. In that sense—building the groundwork required to actually *do* science—the current American schooling system is necessary. It just needs a heavier emphasis on actual comprehension over rote memorization.

The problem is that schools treat knowledge as something "fossilized"—presenting it to students as an absolute truth that must simply be swallowed whole. Where does the critical intellect fit into that equation?

There’s no room for critical thinking in that model, nor is it required for simple absorption. You need that for life outside the classroom.
I'm not saying schools shouldn't encourage critical thought, but that would require its own dedicated subject—and instructors who are specifically trained to teach people how to think critically.

steelridge58 said:Honestly, I think we should focus more on teaching logic to elementary schoolers—but specifically *their* logic! We need to nurture that natural curiosity they have and use it as a bridge to introduce them to the actual world of knowledge. In that sense, I think the "step-by-step" programs some of our local public schools implement through fourth grade are actually quite wonderful for developing various skills, though the real headache starts when they move up because the curriculum stops supporting that creative, hands-on approach. It can make it pretty tough for kids to adjust to the rigid, traditional way things are done later on, but hey, I suppose that’s still better than overwhelming them with heavy-duty requirements that are way too advanced for their age right out of the gate.

Children need to be allowed to play, socialize, and learn spontaneously for as long as possible, developing the creativity and sensitivity that will eventually serve as both their toolkit and their weapon in the real world. I fear, however, that our American mindset tends to instill the exact opposite within our educational system. Children are practically being stripped away from their childhood, when we should truly be striving to let them remain children for as long as we can.

hiddenhound3 said:Children need to be allowed to play, socialize, and learn spontaneously for as long as possible, developing the creativity and sensitivity that will eventually serve as both their toolkit and their weapon in the real world. I fear, however, that our American mindset tends to instill the exact opposite within our educational system. Children are practically being stripped away from their childhood, when we should truly be striving to let them remain children for as long as we can.

👍
There are actually programs out there—take Montessori, for example. I believe there's a Montessori preschool somewhere in Chicago, but since all kids are basically funneled into the public school system by law (if I recall correctly), there isn't much in the way of alternative education once they move past the preschool years here in America.

placidranger said:👍
There are actually programs out there—take Montessori, for example. I believe there's a Montessori preschool somewhere in Chicago, but since all kids are basically funneled into the public school system by law (if I recall correctly), there isn't much in the way of alternative education once they move past the preschool years here in America.

I know a few families who use private elementary schools, and some who go the Waldorf route too. Pretty sure public school isn't mandatory by law...

hiddenhound3 said:Children need to be allowed to play, socialize, and learn spontaneously for as long as possible, developing the creativity and sensitivity that will eventually serve as both their toolkit and their weapon in the real world. I fear, however, that our American mindset tends to instill the exact opposite within our educational system. Children are practically being stripped away from their childhood, when we should truly be striving to let them remain children for as long as we can.

So, what I'm trying to say is... there is this step-by-step approach that is genuinely brilliant and well-conceived in certain schools—I remember about ten years ago, if I recall correctly, they didn't even use grades, just descriptive feedback—but the rest of the educational path just doesn't sustain or build upon that philosophy at all. So, everything I can possibly say about the school system these kids are subjected to—and I use the word "subjected" intentionally—is that it's just inhumane! It’s truly inhumane toward children who are still so young, who practically still smell like baby formula, yet they are expected and forced to conform to something that is completely unnatural for them.

Here is what Valery said: "Ask young people to express things they don't even think or feel—topics far beyond their own experience or interests—and they won't struggle with the expression itself, but rather with the difficulty of having to conform."

Look, there’s no point in repeating myself since I’ve already combed through the previous posts on this thread and gotten my bearings. I was basically just throwing my two cents back at you because you keep barking orders at a bunch of random people who aren't even in a position to talk back to you. You keep lecturing everyone else about how they don't know how to use the resources right in front of them, but honestly? It sounds like you’re just describing yourself. That’s probably why you can't stop bringing it up—you know how it goes, we all tend to get most annoyed by the exact things we hate seeing in our own damn mirrors, if we're being honest enough to admit it.
We actually see eye to eye on why the education system is such a mess. We just can't seem to agree on what to actually do about it.

Zachary Turner6

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, there’s no point in repeating myself since I’ve already combed through the previous posts on this thread and gotten my bearings. I was basically just throwing my two cents back at you because you keep barking orders at a bunch of random people who aren't even in a position to talk back to you. You keep lecturing everyone else about how they don't know how to use the resources right in front of them, but honestly? It sounds like you’re just describing yourself. That’s probably why you can't stop bringing it up—you know how it goes, we all tend to get most annoyed by the exact things we hate seeing in our own damn mirrors, if we're being honest enough to admit it.
We actually see eye to eye on why the education system is such a mess. We just can't seem to agree on what to actually do about it.

Look, there’s really no point in having a discussion if you’re just going to hold a monologue. I specifically asked you to clarify your position—to actually lay out what you meant by that last post—but since you’re refusing to do that, we've hit a wall. I don't see how this conversation is supposed to go anywhere from here.

Look, since this forum is essentially an open public square, I don't mind unpacking some of my reasoning from previous posts—mostly to provide a bit of context for anyone who might stumble upon this discussion down the road.

If I haven't sufficiently emphasized how destructive a narrow-minded society can be, then let me be blunt—it’s a disaster. A person really ought to engage with as many facets of education as possible. It isn't just about "self-improvement" or filling out a resume; it’s about becoming a functional part of the community. When you broaden your horizons, you actually develop the critical, civic, ecological, and socio-political literacy required to navigate the world. Without that multifaceted understanding, you're essentially flying blind in a very complex society.
What I’m absolutely certain I made clear—and I don't think I was being particularly subtle about it—is my stance on how we approach education. My argument is that those first twelve years, from elementary through the end of high school, should be dedicated to absorbing a massive, wide-ranging spectrum of data—what you might call "broad knowledge." It’s about building that foundational breadth over those eight plus four years before anyone even thinks about stepping foot on a college campus.
I’ve already touched upon why I believe the choice of college—which, let’s be honest, should be based on actual personal preference, talent, and existing skill sets rather than just following the herd—should focus primarily on honing the specific skills needed for one's future profession. It’s quite simple: there has to be a dedicated period in a person's life where they focus on becoming proficient in the career they intend to pursue for the long haul. The logic is straightforward—you want to be an expert from day one. Incompetent people are a danger to their profession, but they are often an even greater threat to society at large. Of course, that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that a society populated by "experts" who are nothing more than arrogant hacks is equally problematic—though, in my view, widespread general incompetence is a far more pervasive issue.

Let’s try an argument by way of analogy—and I sincerely hope this scenario remains strictly hypothetical. Suppose you ever found yourself needing a tumor removed from your cerebellum. If you were facing that kind of reality, would you actually care if the surgeon you entrusted with your life—the person literally holding your existence in their hands—was someone who could recite the seven kings of Rome from memory? Would it matter to you if they had a deep understanding of astrophysics, or perhaps a PhD in comparative literature? Of course not. You wouldn't give a second thought to their trivia knowledge or their hobbies; you’d simply want the most highly skilled neurosurgeon in the country. Expertise in the task at hand is what matters—not how many useless facts they can rattle off.

So, looking at the data—specifically global surveys and educational benchmarks (I’ll post a link to something relevant once I dig it up)—it seems Americans actually hold their own quite well when it comes to general knowledge. In fact, I’d go so far as to say they perform excellently in that regard—certainly outclassing the Germans and Britons, who, frankly, can be a bit dim when it comes to basic general literacy. However, there is a massive, glaring gap when you pivot toward specialized professional expertise. While the high level of general awareness is a welcome trend, the lack of technical depth is a different story entirely—and not a particularly good one.

Let me refine my point regarding software engineers—or as I like to call them, "sociologists who missed their calling." For them, sociology isn't strictly necessary to get the job done. Now, don't get me wrong—having a grasp of the basics is incredibly useful—but it shouldn't come at the expense of their core technical curriculum. Because (and I realize I'm starting to sound like a broken record here) a university degree—as that foundational, first tier of higher education—is primarily meant to equip a person with high-level, specialized expertise. 😉)GETTING THE JOB DONE.

And let’s be clear—personal growth doesn't just hit a dead end once you walk across that stage with a diploma, whether it's a Bachelor's, a Master's, or even a PhD. Honestly, we have a professional obligation to keep honing our craft throughout our entire careers—and as for general education? Well, that should really be a lifelong pursuit, shouldn't it?☕

Donna Campbell6 said:Every kind of school out there basically works the same way—they just hand students these pre-packaged bundles of info, like it's some finished product from a factory. It’s all based on what we think we know right now in a specific field, which is usually already a little bit outdated, let's be real.
But honestly? It feels like schools are actually working against what knowledge is supposed to be. Real knowledge isn't something you can just "freeze" in place like that. Its whole vibe is to constantly question everything... and even to doubt itself. Or, well... more like seeing itself as just a temporary stepping stone toward something better and deeper down the road.
Instead, schools treat knowledge like it's set in stone, serving it up to students as this absolute truth you're just supposed to swallow whole without question. So where does that leave critical thinking? Nowhere, really.
I mean, it's hard to imagine a school functioning any other way. But doesn't that make them almost anti-scientific? They take something inherently dynamic and turn it into something totally static. And by teaching like that... aren't they just making people less sharp? What do you guys think?

First off—that's just wrong.
If you had said "most," maybe we could talk. But generalizing like that doesn't fly for a few reasons:

- Saying "every type of school" covers everything from now to ancient times—including something like a Pythagorean school, where people actually worked to find answers rather than just swallowing "pre-packaged" info.

- Even today, there's still discovery-based learning in schools—it's rare, sure, but it's why schools will always beat any computer-based learning. Google is just another way of serving up finished products. Even those lecture links people post here are basically just standard university lectures designed to deliver a final product—they have the least value when it comes to actually making a student think or get involved.

Donna Campbell6 said:Every kind of school out there basically works the same way—they just hand students these pre-packaged bundles of info, like it's some finished product from a factory. It’s all based on what we think we know right now in a specific field, which is usually already a little bit outdated, let's be real.
But honestly? It feels like schools are actually working against what knowledge is supposed to be. Real knowledge isn't something you can just "freeze" in place like that. Its whole vibe is to constantly question everything... and even to doubt itself. Or, well... more like seeing itself as just a temporary stepping stone toward something better and deeper down the road.
Instead, schools treat knowledge like it's set in stone, serving it up to students as this absolute truth you're just supposed to swallow whole without question. So where does that leave critical thinking? Nowhere, really.
I mean, it's hard to imagine a school functioning any other way. But doesn't that make them almost anti-scientific? They take something inherently dynamic and turn it into something totally static. And by teaching like that... aren't they just making people less sharp? What do you guys think?

A package for elementary school?
Duh.
I don't know how things work elsewhere, but even here in the US, plenty of kids in 7th or 8th grade are sent to programs like Science Olympiad or specialized summer camps (not linking, so here's the gist: ). Those might be outside organizations, but they function like schools and work closely with local public schools.

In some high schools, research projects are part of the curriculum—which is how you actually make discoveries;

And at every major university, there are research institutes where students get involved starting freshman year (obviously, they don't take everyone—there's a selection process).

What you seem to be missing is this:

Knowledge isn't something humans just conjure out of thin air.
It's always built on what came before.
You have to master the existing foundation first if you ever want to actually discover something new.

So yeah, formal education is necessary.

I agree that "serving it up" is mostly a bad method—but it's unavoidable sometimes. You can't expect kids to "discover" the alphabet on their own; you have to give it to them. You can't reinvent digits or number systems until you've taught them how the current ones work.

Donna Campbell6 said:Every kind of school out there basically works the same way—they just hand students these pre-packaged bundles of info, like it's some finished product from a factory. It’s all based on what we think we know right now in a specific field, which is usually already a little bit outdated, let's be real.
But honestly? It feels like schools are actually working against what knowledge is supposed to be. Real knowledge isn't something you can just "freeze" in place like that. Its whole vibe is to constantly question everything... and even to doubt itself. Or, well... more like seeing itself as just a temporary stepping stone toward something better and deeper down the road.
Instead, schools treat knowledge like it's set in stone, serving it up to students as this absolute truth you're just supposed to swallow whole without question. So where does that leave critical thinking? Nowhere, really.
I mean, it's hard to imagine a school functioning any other way. But doesn't that make them almost anti-scientific? They take something inherently dynamic and turn it into something totally static. And by teaching like that... aren't they just making people less sharp? What do you guys think?

The whole point of knowledge is that it’s basically our cultural inheritance.
Which means its whole purpose is to be passed down.
If it didn't work like that, everything someone learned would just die with them—and they wouldn't have gained much to begin with.

So, schools aren't there to fight the essence of knowledge, they're there to build upon it (as part of that cultural legacy).

Donna Campbell6 said:Every kind of school out there basically works the same way—they just hand students these pre-packaged bundles of info, like it's some finished product from a factory. It’s all based on what we think we know right now in a specific field, which is usually already a little bit outdated, let's be real.
But honestly? It feels like schools are actually working against what knowledge is supposed to be. Real knowledge isn't something you can just "freeze" in place like that. Its whole vibe is to constantly question everything... and even to doubt itself. Or, well... more like seeing itself as just a temporary stepping stone toward something better and deeper down the road.
Instead, schools treat knowledge like it's set in stone, serving it up to students as this absolute truth you're just supposed to swallow whole without question. So where does that leave critical thinking? Nowhere, really.
I mean, it's hard to imagine a school functioning any other way. But doesn't that make them almost anti-scientific? They take something inherently dynamic and turn it into something totally static. And by teaching like that... aren't they just making people less sharp? What do you guys think?

What you just wrote—you learned it.
And now you're trying to teach it to others.

How is what you're doing any different from what a school does?

Also—why do you think what you just said can't be taught (or isn't being taught) in a school somewhere?

Donna Campbell6 said:Every kind of school out there basically works the same way—they just hand students these pre-packaged bundles of info, like it's some finished product from a factory. It’s all based on what we think we know right now in a specific field, which is usually already a little bit outdated, let's be real.
But honestly? It feels like schools are actually working against what knowledge is supposed to be. Real knowledge isn't something you can just "freeze" in place like that. Its whole vibe is to constantly question everything... and even to doubt itself. Or, well... more like seeing itself as just a temporary stepping stone toward something better and deeper down the road.
Instead, schools treat knowledge like it's set in stone, serving it up to students as this absolute truth you're just supposed to swallow whole without question. So where does that leave critical thinking? Nowhere, really.
I mean, it's hard to imagine a school functioning any other way. But doesn't that make them almost anti-scientific? They take something inherently dynamic and turn it into something totally static. And by teaching like that... aren't they just making people less sharp? What do you guys think?

You're talking about the American school system here.
Sure, maybe it's like that elsewhere, but I know the American way firsthand—having been here, seeing kids struggling over textbooks and notebooks and sheer ignorance. And I remember how things were back when I was in elementary school.
I think even now (based on what people say from those areas), things are just as bad there as they are in most of the US.

It's not true that every single school, everywhere, handles it this way.
There are approaches where kids actually discover knowledge for themselves.
Google is acting up for me right now, but try searching for "hands-on learning" and see what comes up.

Donna Campbell6 said:Every kind of school out there basically works the same way—they just hand students these pre-packaged bundles of info, like it's some finished product from a factory. It’s all based on what we think we know right now in a specific field, which is usually already a little bit outdated, let's be real.
But honestly? It feels like schools are actually working against what knowledge is supposed to be. Real knowledge isn't something you can just "freeze" in place like that. Its whole vibe is to constantly question everything... and even to doubt itself. Or, well... more like seeing itself as just a temporary stepping stone toward something better and deeper down the road.
Instead, schools treat knowledge like it's set in stone, serving it up to students as this absolute truth you're just supposed to swallow whole without question. So where does that leave critical thinking? Nowhere, really.
I mean, it's hard to imagine a school functioning any other way. But doesn't that make them almost anti-scientific? They take something inherently dynamic and turn it into something totally static. And by teaching like that... aren't they just making people less sharp? What do you guys think?

Not for me.
It's only about 50 yards from my house, and I spend a few hours there every single day. 😁

Donna Campbell6 said:Every kind of school out there basically works the same way—they just hand students these pre-packaged bundles of info, like it's some finished product from a factory. It’s all based on what we think we know right now in a specific field, which is usually already a little bit outdated, let's be real.
But honestly? It feels like schools are actually working against what knowledge is supposed to be. Real knowledge isn't something you can just "freeze" in place like that. Its whole vibe is to constantly question everything... and even to doubt itself. Or, well... more like seeing itself as just a temporary stepping stone toward something better and deeper down the road.
Instead, schools treat knowledge like it's set in stone, serving it up to students as this absolute truth you're just supposed to swallow whole without question. So where does that leave critical thinking? Nowhere, really.
I mean, it's hard to imagine a school functioning any other way. But doesn't that make them almost anti-scientific? They take something inherently dynamic and turn it into something totally static. And by teaching like that... aren't they just making people less sharp? What do you guys think?

in America?
From what I've seen—yeah.

Same goes for Mexico, mostly yes, but for totally different reasons (mostly just incompetent staff)

steelridge58 said:Honestly, I think we should focus more on teaching logic to elementary schoolers—but specifically *their* logic! We need to nurture that natural curiosity they have and use it as a bridge to introduce them to the actual world of knowledge. In that sense, I think the "step-by-step" programs some of our local public schools implement through fourth grade are actually quite wonderful for developing various skills, though the real headache starts when they move up because the curriculum stops supporting that creative, hands-on approach. It can make it pretty tough for kids to adjust to the rigid, traditional way things are done later on, but hey, I suppose that’s still better than overwhelming them with heavy-duty requirements that are way too advanced for their age right out of the gate.

Kid logic boils down to two things:

- pure ego
- an inability to see more than one side of a situation at once

Yeah, teachers should understand how kids think—but only so they can help bridge the gap from "toddler reasoning" to actual logical thought. It’s about building concepts, not dragging adult logic down to their level.

And honestly, we don't need to drag adult logic down—Piaget's research basically shows half the adults out there never moved past preschooler logic anyway.

steelridge58 said:Honestly, I think we should focus more on teaching logic to elementary schoolers—but specifically *their* logic! We need to nurture that natural curiosity they have and use it as a bridge to introduce them to the actual world of knowledge. In that sense, I think the "step-by-step" programs some of our local public schools implement through fourth grade are actually quite wonderful for developing various skills, though the real headache starts when they move up because the curriculum stops supporting that creative, hands-on approach. It can make it pretty tough for kids to adjust to the rigid, traditional way things are done later on, but hey, I suppose that’s still better than overwhelming them with heavy-duty requirements that are way too advanced for their age right out of the gate.

The "raw source" we should be supporting is a kid's experience and intuition—not their flawed logic.

steelridge58 said:Honestly, I think we should focus more on teaching logic to elementary schoolers—but specifically *their* logic! We need to nurture that natural curiosity they have and use it as a bridge to introduce them to the actual world of knowledge. In that sense, I think the "step-by-step" programs some of our local public schools implement through fourth grade are actually quite wonderful for developing various skills, though the real headache starts when they move up because the curriculum stops supporting that creative, hands-on approach. It can make it pretty tough for kids to adjust to the rigid, traditional way things are done later on, but hey, I suppose that’s still better than overwhelming them with heavy-duty requirements that are way too advanced for their age right out of the gate.

What exactly counts as "too much"?
From what I've seen in American public schools—it's actually the opposite; it's barely anything. And that was just standard schooling, not some specialized program.

steelridge58 said:That wasn't even what he was getting at, honestly... 🙂 and I truly don't think that was his intention, but rather more of a speculation regarding my own question, especially since I wasn't entirely sure whether it's the Department of Education or the individual teachers who actually call the shots on textbook selection. But still, if it's the government or some other authority making those calls and the books end up being terrible, shouldn't the teachers be the ones trying to push for better options?

Well, it feels like we're already seeing the future manifest in the present... and it doesn't look particularly bright, even though it's precisely because of this future that we ought to be making changes.

Here’s how the authors get through the system:
- if they have a solid textbook
- if they have connections at the Department of Education (regardless of whether the book actually sucks)

The next filter is the teachers.

Teachers might pick books based on:
- the quality of the material
- the quality of the field trips and perks publishers throw their way

But there's this middle filter—basically a loophole in the law. A teacher should technically be able to choose their own books, but most schools just shut that down and force them to stick to whatever the majority picks based on those "other" criteria.

A teacher does have the legal right to be stubborn and push for high-quality textbooks.
In which case, they end up getting publicly trashed for their choice.
So, it really comes down to how much a teacher can handle being roasted like that.
If they aren't thin-skinned, then whatever.

Zachary Turner6 said:Look, we can stop pretending—this issue is present across every single instance, and there’s really no point in trying to deny it or sweep it under the rug.

The sheer volume of information hitting kids these days—driven by rapid scientific breakthroughs and the genuine necessity to process it all—is making it nearly impossible for them to actually absorb anything. It’s overwhelming. This creates a desperate need for professional or scientific guidance at an earlier age, but that brings us to a massive catch-22: how is a fourth or fifth grader supposed to know what they’re actually interested in, let alone what they're good at? At that age, most kids haven't even been exposed to a fraction of the different scientific fields or career paths out there, much less studied them enough to feel any kind of pull toward one. We’re essentially asking them to pick a lane before they even know what a road looks like. Of course, this leaves the entire weight of the situation—from explaining why education matters and sparking a child's curiosity to ensuring the quality and method of teaching itself—resting squarely on... professional To all the educators—teachers, professors, mentors—of whom we are, unfortunately, in such short supply: the current plan is poorly conceived, and even worse, it’s being executed poorly. I hate to say it—and please excuse the few honorable exceptions who are doing incredible work—but much of our teaching staff simply isn't meeting the increasingly complex needs of today's students. Some are struggling because they've been handed an impossible task through no fault of their own, while others... well, let's just say a lack of skill or motivation is playing a role here too.

My ongoing experience as a student in the philosophy department has led me to a rather grim realization—one that keeps me up at night—regarding my future colleagues. One day soon, many of these people will be entrusted with the responsibility of shaping and directing young minds. The problem? Most of these future "professors" handle programming languages about as skillfully as I’d handle deciphering medieval Manchu—which is to say, not at all. As for actually assembling a computer from scratch? That’s pure science fiction to them. Now, look, I’m not suggesting a professor needs to be a master technician, but if you're going to teach theory, your grasp of it should at least be flawless. Computer science, in particular, moves at a breakneck pace compared to almost any other field. Because of that rapid evolution, an educator in this discipline can't just graduate and call it a day; their education has to be a lifelong pursuit. Of course, I think that applies to professors in every field—it's just that given how fast tech is shifting under our feet, the stakes feel much higher in CS.

The situation here in America is even more dire. We have an entire generation that can’t seem to grasp the brilliance of Hemingway, Faulkner, or Steinbeck—and if they can't connect with those giants now, how on earth are they supposed to pass that torch to their own kids one day? It feels like we're losing the thread entirely.
What exactly is the end goal for these American studies students who can barely string together a coherent sentence in English, let alone draft a single semi-professional paper without tripping over their own grammar? Are they expected to become editors or teachers? It seems a bit ambitious to suggest someone could be a literature professor when they can't even manage three sentences regarding the importance of Marko Marulić to our literary heritage.

A lack of motivation combined with a visible deficit in actual expertise—especially in an unseasoned educator—is a dead giveaway that they’ve chosen the wrong career path. It’s a heavy burden for responsible employers to shoulder; they have to recognize this early and deny these individuals the chance to fail, because letting someone through due to sheer negligence means depriving kids and young adults of the quality education they deserve. Of course, that leads to the unfortunate reality where most new educators will struggle to find work—if they can find any at all—though, let's be honest, that's already the case in most parts of the country.

Of course, we can't just pin this entire mess on the teaching staff. It’s a bit shortsighted to act like the responsibility lies solely with them. Honestly, trying to motivate professors, administrators, or teachers to actually excel at their jobs is a losing battle when you consider the reality of their situation—they are largely underpaid, undervalued, dismissed, and stripped of their professional dignity. These individuals carry an immense weight on their shoulders. The ones who are truly skilled and possess actual pedagogical talent should be treated as a massive national asset—indispensable, really—yet they find themselves marginalized in what we so pretentiously call a "knowledge society." It’s become a bit of a joke, hasn't it? In our current system, it feels like those who actually know how to do the work are ignored, while those who have no clue are the ones running the show.

The sheer chaos and mismanagement within our educational infrastructure—everything from funding elementary schools through universities to equipping facilities and actually paying staff, from professors down to the janitors—is escalating year after year. And the icing on this dysfunctional cake? The crumbling state of the entire academic system here in America. This so-called "knowledge society" seems to have a knack for talking a big game about intellectual capital, yet they can barely figure out how to recognize or value the very expertise they claim to rely on.

Just now.

Zachary Turner6 said:Look, we can stop pretending—this issue is present across every single instance, and there’s really no point in trying to deny it or sweep it under the rug.

The sheer volume of information hitting kids these days—driven by rapid scientific breakthroughs and the genuine necessity to process it all—is making it nearly impossible for them to actually absorb anything. It’s overwhelming. This creates a desperate need for professional or scientific guidance at an earlier age, but that brings us to a massive catch-22: how is a fourth or fifth grader supposed to know what they’re actually interested in, let alone what they're good at? At that age, most kids haven't even been exposed to a fraction of the different scientific fields or career paths out there, much less studied them enough to feel any kind of pull toward one. We’re essentially asking them to pick a lane before they even know what a road looks like. Of course, this leaves the entire weight of the situation—from explaining why education matters and sparking a child's curiosity to ensuring the quality and method of teaching itself—resting squarely on... professional To all the educators—teachers, professors, mentors—of whom we are, unfortunately, in such short supply: the current plan is poorly conceived, and even worse, it’s being executed poorly. I hate to say it—and please excuse the few honorable exceptions who are doing incredible work—but much of our teaching staff simply isn't meeting the increasingly complex needs of today's students. Some are struggling because they've been handed an impossible task through no fault of their own, while others... well, let's just say a lack of skill or motivation is playing a role here too.

My ongoing experience as a student in the philosophy department has led me to a rather grim realization—one that keeps me up at night—regarding my future colleagues. One day soon, many of these people will be entrusted with the responsibility of shaping and directing young minds. The problem? Most of these future "professors" handle programming languages about as skillfully as I’d handle deciphering medieval Manchu—which is to say, not at all. As for actually assembling a computer from scratch? That’s pure science fiction to them. Now, look, I’m not suggesting a professor needs to be a master technician, but if you're going to teach theory, your grasp of it should at least be flawless. Computer science, in particular, moves at a breakneck pace compared to almost any other field. Because of that rapid evolution, an educator in this discipline can't just graduate and call it a day; their education has to be a lifelong pursuit. Of course, I think that applies to professors in every field—it's just that given how fast tech is shifting under our feet, the stakes feel much higher in CS.

The situation here in America is even more dire. We have an entire generation that can’t seem to grasp the brilliance of Hemingway, Faulkner, or Steinbeck—and if they can't connect with those giants now, how on earth are they supposed to pass that torch to their own kids one day? It feels like we're losing the thread entirely.
What exactly is the end goal for these American studies students who can barely string together a coherent sentence in English, let alone draft a single semi-professional paper without tripping over their own grammar? Are they expected to become editors or teachers? It seems a bit ambitious to suggest someone could be a literature professor when they can't even manage three sentences regarding the importance of Marko Marulić to our literary heritage.

A lack of motivation combined with a visible deficit in actual expertise—especially in an unseasoned educator—is a dead giveaway that they’ve chosen the wrong career path. It’s a heavy burden for responsible employers to shoulder; they have to recognize this early and deny these individuals the chance to fail, because letting someone through due to sheer negligence means depriving kids and young adults of the quality education they deserve. Of course, that leads to the unfortunate reality where most new educators will struggle to find work—if they can find any at all—though, let's be honest, that's already the case in most parts of the country.

Of course, we can't just pin this entire mess on the teaching staff. It’s a bit shortsighted to act like the responsibility lies solely with them. Honestly, trying to motivate professors, administrators, or teachers to actually excel at their jobs is a losing battle when you consider the reality of their situation—they are largely underpaid, undervalued, dismissed, and stripped of their professional dignity. These individuals carry an immense weight on their shoulders. The ones who are truly skilled and possess actual pedagogical talent should be treated as a massive national asset—indispensable, really—yet they find themselves marginalized in what we so pretentiously call a "knowledge society." It’s become a bit of a joke, hasn't it? In our current system, it feels like those who actually know how to do the work are ignored, while those who have no clue are the ones running the show.

The sheer chaos and mismanagement within our educational infrastructure—everything from funding elementary schools through universities to equipping facilities and actually paying staff, from professors down to the janitors—is escalating year after year. And the icing on this dysfunctional cake? The crumbling state of the entire academic system here in America. This so-called "knowledge society" seems to have a knack for talking a big game about intellectual capital, yet they can barely figure out how to recognize or value the very expertise they claim to rely on.

Look, kids don't need to soak up every single bit of data—it's just not how it works.
Kids need to learn how to actually think—and more importantly, how to hunt down the right info on their own.

Some stuff you gotta lock in because it’s the foundation—but other things? Total waste of brain space to memorize.

Plus, elementary school should basically just be the training ground for lifelong learning—period.

Zachary Turner6 said:Look, we can stop pretending—this issue is present across every single instance, and there’s really no point in trying to deny it or sweep it under the rug.

The sheer volume of information hitting kids these days—driven by rapid scientific breakthroughs and the genuine necessity to process it all—is making it nearly impossible for them to actually absorb anything. It’s overwhelming. This creates a desperate need for professional or scientific guidance at an earlier age, but that brings us to a massive catch-22: how is a fourth or fifth grader supposed to know what they’re actually interested in, let alone what they're good at? At that age, most kids haven't even been exposed to a fraction of the different scientific fields or career paths out there, much less studied them enough to feel any kind of pull toward one. We’re essentially asking them to pick a lane before they even know what a road looks like. Of course, this leaves the entire weight of the situation—from explaining why education matters and sparking a child's curiosity to ensuring the quality and method of teaching itself—resting squarely on... professional To all the educators—teachers, professors, mentors—of whom we are, unfortunately, in such short supply: the current plan is poorly conceived, and even worse, it’s being executed poorly. I hate to say it—and please excuse the few honorable exceptions who are doing incredible work—but much of our teaching staff simply isn't meeting the increasingly complex needs of today's students. Some are struggling because they've been handed an impossible task through no fault of their own, while others... well, let's just say a lack of skill or motivation is playing a role here too.

My ongoing experience as a student in the philosophy department has led me to a rather grim realization—one that keeps me up at night—regarding my future colleagues. One day soon, many of these people will be entrusted with the responsibility of shaping and directing young minds. The problem? Most of these future "professors" handle programming languages about as skillfully as I’d handle deciphering medieval Manchu—which is to say, not at all. As for actually assembling a computer from scratch? That’s pure science fiction to them. Now, look, I’m not suggesting a professor needs to be a master technician, but if you're going to teach theory, your grasp of it should at least be flawless. Computer science, in particular, moves at a breakneck pace compared to almost any other field. Because of that rapid evolution, an educator in this discipline can't just graduate and call it a day; their education has to be a lifelong pursuit. Of course, I think that applies to professors in every field—it's just that given how fast tech is shifting under our feet, the stakes feel much higher in CS.

The situation here in America is even more dire. We have an entire generation that can’t seem to grasp the brilliance of Hemingway, Faulkner, or Steinbeck—and if they can't connect with those giants now, how on earth are they supposed to pass that torch to their own kids one day? It feels like we're losing the thread entirely.
What exactly is the end goal for these American studies students who can barely string together a coherent sentence in English, let alone draft a single semi-professional paper without tripping over their own grammar? Are they expected to become editors or teachers? It seems a bit ambitious to suggest someone could be a literature professor when they can't even manage three sentences regarding the importance of Marko Marulić to our literary heritage.

A lack of motivation combined with a visible deficit in actual expertise—especially in an unseasoned educator—is a dead giveaway that they’ve chosen the wrong career path. It’s a heavy burden for responsible employers to shoulder; they have to recognize this early and deny these individuals the chance to fail, because letting someone through due to sheer negligence means depriving kids and young adults of the quality education they deserve. Of course, that leads to the unfortunate reality where most new educators will struggle to find work—if they can find any at all—though, let's be honest, that's already the case in most parts of the country.

Of course, we can't just pin this entire mess on the teaching staff. It’s a bit shortsighted to act like the responsibility lies solely with them. Honestly, trying to motivate professors, administrators, or teachers to actually excel at their jobs is a losing battle when you consider the reality of their situation—they are largely underpaid, undervalued, dismissed, and stripped of their professional dignity. These individuals carry an immense weight on their shoulders. The ones who are truly skilled and possess actual pedagogical talent should be treated as a massive national asset—indispensable, really—yet they find themselves marginalized in what we so pretentiously call a "knowledge society." It’s become a bit of a joke, hasn't it? In our current system, it feels like those who actually know how to do the work are ignored, while those who have no clue are the ones running the show.

The sheer chaos and mismanagement within our educational infrastructure—everything from funding elementary schools through universities to equipping facilities and actually paying staff, from professors down to the janitors—is escalating year after year. And the icing on this dysfunctional cake? The crumbling state of the entire academic system here in America. This so-called "knowledge society" seems to have a knack for talking a big game about intellectual capital, yet they can barely figure out how to recognize or value the very expertise they claim to rely on.

4th and 5th grade isn't about pigeonholing kids early—even if things like elective coding or art classes feel like they’re pushing them toward a career path. It’s really just about building that core knowledge base and helping them develop actual thought and language through decentration.

Zachary Turner6 said:Look, we can stop pretending—this issue is present across every single instance, and there’s really no point in trying to deny it or sweep it under the rug.

The sheer volume of information hitting kids these days—driven by rapid scientific breakthroughs and the genuine necessity to process it all—is making it nearly impossible for them to actually absorb anything. It’s overwhelming. This creates a desperate need for professional or scientific guidance at an earlier age, but that brings us to a massive catch-22: how is a fourth or fifth grader supposed to know what they’re actually interested in, let alone what they're good at? At that age, most kids haven't even been exposed to a fraction of the different scientific fields or career paths out there, much less studied them enough to feel any kind of pull toward one. We’re essentially asking them to pick a lane before they even know what a road looks like. Of course, this leaves the entire weight of the situation—from explaining why education matters and sparking a child's curiosity to ensuring the quality and method of teaching itself—resting squarely on... professional To all the educators—teachers, professors, mentors—of whom we are, unfortunately, in such short supply: the current plan is poorly conceived, and even worse, it’s being executed poorly. I hate to say it—and please excuse the few honorable exceptions who are doing incredible work—but much of our teaching staff simply isn't meeting the increasingly complex needs of today's students. Some are struggling because they've been handed an impossible task through no fault of their own, while others... well, let's just say a lack of skill or motivation is playing a role here too.

My ongoing experience as a student in the philosophy department has led me to a rather grim realization—one that keeps me up at night—regarding my future colleagues. One day soon, many of these people will be entrusted with the responsibility of shaping and directing young minds. The problem? Most of these future "professors" handle programming languages about as skillfully as I’d handle deciphering medieval Manchu—which is to say, not at all. As for actually assembling a computer from scratch? That’s pure science fiction to them. Now, look, I’m not suggesting a professor needs to be a master technician, but if you're going to teach theory, your grasp of it should at least be flawless. Computer science, in particular, moves at a breakneck pace compared to almost any other field. Because of that rapid evolution, an educator in this discipline can't just graduate and call it a day; their education has to be a lifelong pursuit. Of course, I think that applies to professors in every field—it's just that given how fast tech is shifting under our feet, the stakes feel much higher in CS.

The situation here in America is even more dire. We have an entire generation that can’t seem to grasp the brilliance of Hemingway, Faulkner, or Steinbeck—and if they can't connect with those giants now, how on earth are they supposed to pass that torch to their own kids one day? It feels like we're losing the thread entirely.
What exactly is the end goal for these American studies students who can barely string together a coherent sentence in English, let alone draft a single semi-professional paper without tripping over their own grammar? Are they expected to become editors or teachers? It seems a bit ambitious to suggest someone could be a literature professor when they can't even manage three sentences regarding the importance of Marko Marulić to our literary heritage.

A lack of motivation combined with a visible deficit in actual expertise—especially in an unseasoned educator—is a dead giveaway that they’ve chosen the wrong career path. It’s a heavy burden for responsible employers to shoulder; they have to recognize this early and deny these individuals the chance to fail, because letting someone through due to sheer negligence means depriving kids and young adults of the quality education they deserve. Of course, that leads to the unfortunate reality where most new educators will struggle to find work—if they can find any at all—though, let's be honest, that's already the case in most parts of the country.

Of course, we can't just pin this entire mess on the teaching staff. It’s a bit shortsighted to act like the responsibility lies solely with them. Honestly, trying to motivate professors, administrators, or teachers to actually excel at their jobs is a losing battle when you consider the reality of their situation—they are largely underpaid, undervalued, dismissed, and stripped of their professional dignity. These individuals carry an immense weight on their shoulders. The ones who are truly skilled and possess actual pedagogical talent should be treated as a massive national asset—indispensable, really—yet they find themselves marginalized in what we so pretentiously call a "knowledge society." It’s become a bit of a joke, hasn't it? In our current system, it feels like those who actually know how to do the work are ignored, while those who have no clue are the ones running the show.

The sheer chaos and mismanagement within our educational infrastructure—everything from funding elementary schools through universities to equipping facilities and actually paying staff, from professors down to the janitors—is escalating year after year. And the icing on this dysfunctional cake? The crumbling state of the entire academic system here in America. This so-called "knowledge society" seems to have a knack for talking a big game about intellectual capital, yet they can barely figure out how to recognize or value the very expertise they claim to rely on.

Yeah, I'm with you—they're the ones who dropped the ball here.
And they deserve to take the hit.

Zachary Turner6 said:Look, we can stop pretending—this issue is present across every single instance, and there’s really no point in trying to deny it or sweep it under the rug.

The sheer volume of information hitting kids these days—driven by rapid scientific breakthroughs and the genuine necessity to process it all—is making it nearly impossible for them to actually absorb anything. It’s overwhelming. This creates a desperate need for professional or scientific guidance at an earlier age, but that brings us to a massive catch-22: how is a fourth or fifth grader supposed to know what they’re actually interested in, let alone what they're good at? At that age, most kids haven't even been exposed to a fraction of the different scientific fields or career paths out there, much less studied them enough to feel any kind of pull toward one. We’re essentially asking them to pick a lane before they even know what a road looks like. Of course, this leaves the entire weight of the situation—from explaining why education matters and sparking a child's curiosity to ensuring the quality and method of teaching itself—resting squarely on... professional To all the educators—teachers, professors, mentors—of whom we are, unfortunately, in such short supply: the current plan is poorly conceived, and even worse, it’s being executed poorly. I hate to say it—and please excuse the few honorable exceptions who are doing incredible work—but much of our teaching staff simply isn't meeting the increasingly complex needs of today's students. Some are struggling because they've been handed an impossible task through no fault of their own, while others... well, let's just say a lack of skill or motivation is playing a role here too.

My ongoing experience as a student in the philosophy department has led me to a rather grim realization—one that keeps me up at night—regarding my future colleagues. One day soon, many of these people will be entrusted with the responsibility of shaping and directing young minds. The problem? Most of these future "professors" handle programming languages about as skillfully as I’d handle deciphering medieval Manchu—which is to say, not at all. As for actually assembling a computer from scratch? That’s pure science fiction to them. Now, look, I’m not suggesting a professor needs to be a master technician, but if you're going to teach theory, your grasp of it should at least be flawless. Computer science, in particular, moves at a breakneck pace compared to almost any other field. Because of that rapid evolution, an educator in this discipline can't just graduate and call it a day; their education has to be a lifelong pursuit. Of course, I think that applies to professors in every field—it's just that given how fast tech is shifting under our feet, the stakes feel much higher in CS.

The situation here in America is even more dire. We have an entire generation that can’t seem to grasp the brilliance of Hemingway, Faulkner, or Steinbeck—and if they can't connect with those giants now, how on earth are they supposed to pass that torch to their own kids one day? It feels like we're losing the thread entirely.
What exactly is the end goal for these American studies students who can barely string together a coherent sentence in English, let alone draft a single semi-professional paper without tripping over their own grammar? Are they expected to become editors or teachers? It seems a bit ambitious to suggest someone could be a literature professor when they can't even manage three sentences regarding the importance of Marko Marulić to our literary heritage.

A lack of motivation combined with a visible deficit in actual expertise—especially in an unseasoned educator—is a dead giveaway that they’ve chosen the wrong career path. It’s a heavy burden for responsible employers to shoulder; they have to recognize this early and deny these individuals the chance to fail, because letting someone through due to sheer negligence means depriving kids and young adults of the quality education they deserve. Of course, that leads to the unfortunate reality where most new educators will struggle to find work—if they can find any at all—though, let's be honest, that's already the case in most parts of the country.

Of course, we can't just pin this entire mess on the teaching staff. It’s a bit shortsighted to act like the responsibility lies solely with them. Honestly, trying to motivate professors, administrators, or teachers to actually excel at their jobs is a losing battle when you consider the reality of their situation—they are largely underpaid, undervalued, dismissed, and stripped of their professional dignity. These individuals carry an immense weight on their shoulders. The ones who are truly skilled and possess actual pedagogical talent should be treated as a massive national asset—indispensable, really—yet they find themselves marginalized in what we so pretentiously call a "knowledge society." It’s become a bit of a joke, hasn't it? In our current system, it feels like those who actually know how to do the work are ignored, while those who have no clue are the ones running the show.

The sheer chaos and mismanagement within our educational infrastructure—everything from funding elementary schools through universities to equipping facilities and actually paying staff, from professors down to the janitors—is escalating year after year. And the icing on this dysfunctional cake? The crumbling state of the entire academic system here in America. This so-called "knowledge society" seems to have a knack for talking a big game about intellectual capital, yet they can barely figure out how to recognize or value the very expertise they claim to rely on.

Incompetence and zero motivation are the main culprits.

Zachary Turner6 said:Look, we can stop pretending—this issue is present across every single instance, and there’s really no point in trying to deny it or sweep it under the rug.

The sheer volume of information hitting kids these days—driven by rapid scientific breakthroughs and the genuine necessity to process it all—is making it nearly impossible for them to actually absorb anything. It’s overwhelming. This creates a desperate need for professional or scientific guidance at an earlier age, but that brings us to a massive catch-22: how is a fourth or fifth grader supposed to know what they’re actually interested in, let alone what they're good at? At that age, most kids haven't even been exposed to a fraction of the different scientific fields or career paths out there, much less studied them enough to feel any kind of pull toward one. We’re essentially asking them to pick a lane before they even know what a road looks like. Of course, this leaves the entire weight of the situation—from explaining why education matters and sparking a child's curiosity to ensuring the quality and method of teaching itself—resting squarely on... professional To all the educators—teachers, professors, mentors—of whom we are, unfortunately, in such short supply: the current plan is poorly conceived, and even worse, it’s being executed poorly. I hate to say it—and please excuse the few honorable exceptions who are doing incredible work—but much of our teaching staff simply isn't meeting the increasingly complex needs of today's students. Some are struggling because they've been handed an impossible task through no fault of their own, while others... well, let's just say a lack of skill or motivation is playing a role here too.

My ongoing experience as a student in the philosophy department has led me to a rather grim realization—one that keeps me up at night—regarding my future colleagues. One day soon, many of these people will be entrusted with the responsibility of shaping and directing young minds. The problem? Most of these future "professors" handle programming languages about as skillfully as I’d handle deciphering medieval Manchu—which is to say, not at all. As for actually assembling a computer from scratch? That’s pure science fiction to them. Now, look, I’m not suggesting a professor needs to be a master technician, but if you're going to teach theory, your grasp of it should at least be flawless. Computer science, in particular, moves at a breakneck pace compared to almost any other field. Because of that rapid evolution, an educator in this discipline can't just graduate and call it a day; their education has to be a lifelong pursuit. Of course, I think that applies to professors in every field—it's just that given how fast tech is shifting under our feet, the stakes feel much higher in CS.

The situation here in America is even more dire. We have an entire generation that can’t seem to grasp the brilliance of Hemingway, Faulkner, or Steinbeck—and if they can't connect with those giants now, how on earth are they supposed to pass that torch to their own kids one day? It feels like we're losing the thread entirely.
What exactly is the end goal for these American studies students who can barely string together a coherent sentence in English, let alone draft a single semi-professional paper without tripping over their own grammar? Are they expected to become editors or teachers? It seems a bit ambitious to suggest someone could be a literature professor when they can't even manage three sentences regarding the importance of Marko Marulić to our literary heritage.

A lack of motivation combined with a visible deficit in actual expertise—especially in an unseasoned educator—is a dead giveaway that they’ve chosen the wrong career path. It’s a heavy burden for responsible employers to shoulder; they have to recognize this early and deny these individuals the chance to fail, because letting someone through due to sheer negligence means depriving kids and young adults of the quality education they deserve. Of course, that leads to the unfortunate reality where most new educators will struggle to find work—if they can find any at all—though, let's be honest, that's already the case in most parts of the country.

Of course, we can't just pin this entire mess on the teaching staff. It’s a bit shortsighted to act like the responsibility lies solely with them. Honestly, trying to motivate professors, administrators, or teachers to actually excel at their jobs is a losing battle when you consider the reality of their situation—they are largely underpaid, undervalued, dismissed, and stripped of their professional dignity. These individuals carry an immense weight on their shoulders. The ones who are truly skilled and possess actual pedagogical talent should be treated as a massive national asset—indispensable, really—yet they find themselves marginalized in what we so pretentiously call a "knowledge society." It’s become a bit of a joke, hasn't it? In our current system, it feels like those who actually know how to do the work are ignored, while those who have no clue are the ones running the show.

The sheer chaos and mismanagement within our educational infrastructure—everything from funding elementary schools through universities to equipping facilities and actually paying staff, from professors down to the janitors—is escalating year after year. And the icing on this dysfunctional cake? The crumbling state of the entire academic system here in America. This so-called "knowledge society" seems to have a knack for talking a big game about intellectual capital, yet they can barely figure out how to recognize or value the very expertise they claim to rely on.

Spot on!

Whenever someone tries to criticize the education system, the faculty immediately teams up to scream, "We're professionally trained for this!"
Yeah, right.
There's no point in using "we"—it's not a collective effort.

Back when I was in college, there was this girl, Violet, who spent her entire education just focusing on her makeup, hiding under her desk.
Her dad was some bigshot executive, so thanks to him—and the fact that teachers got bored looking at her—she somehow coasted through and grabbed a degree.

I remember she couldn't even name the parts of a flower.

Now, I'm working in a school with someone who actually thinks Shakespeare was Italian.

So—no, finishing school and getting a piece of paper doesn't mean you're actually qualified.
(Which brings the whole value of the education system into question again)

Zachary Turner6 said:Look, we can stop pretending—this issue is present across every single instance, and there’s really no point in trying to deny it or sweep it under the rug.

The sheer volume of information hitting kids these days—driven by rapid scientific breakthroughs and the genuine necessity to process it all—is making it nearly impossible for them to actually absorb anything. It’s overwhelming. This creates a desperate need for professional or scientific guidance at an earlier age, but that brings us to a massive catch-22: how is a fourth or fifth grader supposed to know what they’re actually interested in, let alone what they're good at? At that age, most kids haven't even been exposed to a fraction of the different scientific fields or career paths out there, much less studied them enough to feel any kind of pull toward one. We’re essentially asking them to pick a lane before they even know what a road looks like. Of course, this leaves the entire weight of the situation—from explaining why education matters and sparking a child's curiosity to ensuring the quality and method of teaching itself—resting squarely on... professional To all the educators—teachers, professors, mentors—of whom we are, unfortunately, in such short supply: the current plan is poorly conceived, and even worse, it’s being executed poorly. I hate to say it—and please excuse the few honorable exceptions who are doing incredible work—but much of our teaching staff simply isn't meeting the increasingly complex needs of today's students. Some are struggling because they've been handed an impossible task through no fault of their own, while others... well, let's just say a lack of skill or motivation is playing a role here too.

My ongoing experience as a student in the philosophy department has led me to a rather grim realization—one that keeps me up at night—regarding my future colleagues. One day soon, many of these people will be entrusted with the responsibility of shaping and directing young minds. The problem? Most of these future "professors" handle programming languages about as skillfully as I’d handle deciphering medieval Manchu—which is to say, not at all. As for actually assembling a computer from scratch? That’s pure science fiction to them. Now, look, I’m not suggesting a professor needs to be a master technician, but if you're going to teach theory, your grasp of it should at least be flawless. Computer science, in particular, moves at a breakneck pace compared to almost any other field. Because of that rapid evolution, an educator in this discipline can't just graduate and call it a day; their education has to be a lifelong pursuit. Of course, I think that applies to professors in every field—it's just that given how fast tech is shifting under our feet, the stakes feel much higher in CS.

The situation here in America is even more dire. We have an entire generation that can’t seem to grasp the brilliance of Hemingway, Faulkner, or Steinbeck—and if they can't connect with those giants now, how on earth are they supposed to pass that torch to their own kids one day? It feels like we're losing the thread entirely.
What exactly is the end goal for these American studies students who can barely string together a coherent sentence in English, let alone draft a single semi-professional paper without tripping over their own grammar? Are they expected to become editors or teachers? It seems a bit ambitious to suggest someone could be a literature professor when they can't even manage three sentences regarding the importance of Marko Marulić to our literary heritage.

A lack of motivation combined with a visible deficit in actual expertise—especially in an unseasoned educator—is a dead giveaway that they’ve chosen the wrong career path. It’s a heavy burden for responsible employers to shoulder; they have to recognize this early and deny these individuals the chance to fail, because letting someone through due to sheer negligence means depriving kids and young adults of the quality education they deserve. Of course, that leads to the unfortunate reality where most new educators will struggle to find work—if they can find any at all—though, let's be honest, that's already the case in most parts of the country.

Of course, we can't just pin this entire mess on the teaching staff. It’s a bit shortsighted to act like the responsibility lies solely with them. Honestly, trying to motivate professors, administrators, or teachers to actually excel at their jobs is a losing battle when you consider the reality of their situation—they are largely underpaid, undervalued, dismissed, and stripped of their professional dignity. These individuals carry an immense weight on their shoulders. The ones who are truly skilled and possess actual pedagogical talent should be treated as a massive national asset—indispensable, really—yet they find themselves marginalized in what we so pretentiously call a "knowledge society." It’s become a bit of a joke, hasn't it? In our current system, it feels like those who actually know how to do the work are ignored, while those who have no clue are the ones running the show.

The sheer chaos and mismanagement within our educational infrastructure—everything from funding elementary schools through universities to equipping facilities and actually paying staff, from professors down to the janitors—is escalating year after year. And the icing on this dysfunctional cake? The crumbling state of the entire academic system here in America. This so-called "knowledge society" seems to have a knack for talking a big game about intellectual capital, yet they can barely figure out how to recognize or value the very expertise they claim to rely on.

Oh, I know how.
Just look at the reading lists in elementary schools (mostly garbage texts) and the way they handle the few decent ones, and it’ll be obvious.

(The reason here is different: it mostly comes down to the staff. When a school organizes a trip to a book fair, half the teachers hijack the bus and stop in Chicago on the way just to visit relatives—using free transport for a road trip. The ones who actually make it to the fair just buy cookbooks or celebrity memoirs. The actual reading lists have great texts, but you need someone who actually knows how to work with kids to analyze them.)

says:
Sure, it’s not just on the educators—but let’s be real, knowing that most teachers are underpaid, undervalued, and basically treated like garbage doesn't exactly help their drive to actually do a good job.

Hold up, I'm gonna have to disagree there.
Why would anyone pay you a premium if you aren't pulling your weight?
Back when I lived in the States, salaries used to fluctuate—there was one stretch where we were actually making decent money (for about a year). The quality of the work didn't change one bit.
There was this proposal floating around to move toward merit-based pay—basically, testing all the kids six or seven times a year to track individual progress, then using those scores to determine how much each teacher gets paid.
The teachers went on a massive strike against it, so the whole thing died in committee.
Shame.

Olivia Evans8 said:

Wait, are we really talking about servantes? Like, the actual concept? Because if we are... oh man... that opens up such a massive rabbit hole! I honestly could go on about this for hours... just thinking about how it all ties together... it's wild! Seriously though, let's dive in... kaže:
Man, I still remember back in '66 when I started first grade... we spent the entire year just grinding away at uppercase and lowercase letters. That was it! Just ABCs all day long...

When I say logic, I’m not talking about some boring math equation, okay? I mean the actual game of it! You gotta use simple little games to show them basic concepts first. Then, you slowly layer on the complexity, getting more and more precise until they finally land on the actual definition. Because honestly, what is a kid even going to do with a textbook definition? My brother was stuck in third grade being forced to memorize these super technical definitions for things like "media," "television," and "the TV set." Like, seriously? Do you even know the difference between a television and the concept of television? By the time you're 30 or 40, sure, you get it. But at nine years old? It’s just exhausting... and totally boring...

So, think about it... from elementary all the way through high school, they basically throw a massive pile of subjects at you, just hoping one of them actually sticks. But honestly, is that even the right way to do things? Ever since my freshman year, I knew math was the only thing that actually clicked for me. Everything else? Total snooze fest. But I still had to grind out those grades and waste so much precious time mastering stuff I’m probably never going to use in the real world. It feels like such a waste... I know so many bright people who totally burned out trying to chase this "well-rounded education" dream, and because of that, they ended up way less prepared for the careers they actually love. It's such a double-edged sword, though... you could learn everything and maybe find a passion, but man...

How am I even supposed to find the headspace to actually critique my physics experiments when I'm stuck drowning in textbooks about Abraham Lincoln, trying to memorize the US GDP, and reading endless stuff about the Romans... seriously...

Play and logic aren't the same thing—though you definitely develop them through play.
(Per Piagetian theory, play is basically just learning about the world)

But kids need definitions—not right at first grade (though I start introducing them then) but definitely by third grade.

If you want the deep dive on how much detail they can handle, look up Vygotsky ("thought and language"). The "zone of proximal development" shows up in every single American textbook on teaching, pedagogy, or psychology—and for good reason, since that's basically the engine behind how school-based learning is supposed to work.

A kid won't grasp how definitions are built at first, but over time, they'll intuitively pick up the pattern for forming them correctly.

Third grade is the sweet spot for starting this because that's roughly when abstract thinking starts kicking in—the real boundary is around age 11, but thanks to the zone of proximal development, we should start earlier.

We can go deeper into how definitions drive concept development if you're interested.

Bottom line: you shouldn't just hand a kid a finished definition. You derive it with them based on the situation—letting them essentially stumble into experimental techniques—rather than just handing them a canned answer they'll memorize without actually getting it.

Olivia Evans8 said:

Wait, are we really talking about servantes? Like, the actual concept? Because if we are... oh man... that opens up such a massive rabbit hole! I honestly could go on about this for hours... just thinking about how it all ties together... it's wild! Seriously though, let's dive in... kaže:
Man, I still remember back in '66 when I started first grade... we spent the entire year just grinding away at uppercase and lowercase letters. That was it! Just ABCs all day long...

When I say logic, I’m not talking about some boring math equation, okay? I mean the actual game of it! You gotta use simple little games to show them basic concepts first. Then, you slowly layer on the complexity, getting more and more precise until they finally land on the actual definition. Because honestly, what is a kid even going to do with a textbook definition? My brother was stuck in third grade being forced to memorize these super technical definitions for things like "media," "television," and "the TV set." Like, seriously? Do you even know the difference between a television and the concept of television? By the time you're 30 or 40, sure, you get it. But at nine years old? It’s just exhausting... and totally boring...

So, think about it... from elementary all the way through high school, they basically throw a massive pile of subjects at you, just hoping one of them actually sticks. But honestly, is that even the right way to do things? Ever since my freshman year, I knew math was the only thing that actually clicked for me. Everything else? Total snooze fest. But I still had to grind out those grades and waste so much precious time mastering stuff I’m probably never going to use in the real world. It feels like such a waste... I know so many bright people who totally burned out trying to chase this "well-rounded education" dream, and because of that, they ended up way less prepared for the careers they actually love. It's such a double-edged sword, though... you could learn everything and maybe find a passion, but man...

How am I even supposed to find the headspace to actually critique my physics experiments when I'm stuck drowning in textbooks about Abraham Lincoln, trying to memorize the US GDP, and reading endless stuff about the Romans... seriously...

There’s no such thing as something being inherently boring to a kid.
Just think about those old classic American variety shows or Saturday morning cartoons.
or, remember those old sketch comedy shows on local networks.

What does a "precise definition" even mean here? (Give me an example.)

Olivia Evans8 said:

Wait, are we really talking about servantes? Like, the actual concept? Because if we are... oh man... that opens up such a massive rabbit hole! I honestly could go on about this for hours... just thinking about how it all ties together... it's wild! Seriously though, let's dive in... kaže:
Man, I still remember back in '66 when I started first grade... we spent the entire year just grinding away at uppercase and lowercase letters. That was it! Just ABCs all day long...

When I say logic, I’m not talking about some boring math equation, okay? I mean the actual game of it! You gotta use simple little games to show them basic concepts first. Then, you slowly layer on the complexity, getting more and more precise until they finally land on the actual definition. Because honestly, what is a kid even going to do with a textbook definition? My brother was stuck in third grade being forced to memorize these super technical definitions for things like "media," "television," and "the TV set." Like, seriously? Do you even know the difference between a television and the concept of television? By the time you're 30 or 40, sure, you get it. But at nine years old? It’s just exhausting... and totally boring...

So, think about it... from elementary all the way through high school, they basically throw a massive pile of subjects at you, just hoping one of them actually sticks. But honestly, is that even the right way to do things? Ever since my freshman year, I knew math was the only thing that actually clicked for me. Everything else? Total snooze fest. But I still had to grind out those grades and waste so much precious time mastering stuff I’m probably never going to use in the real world. It feels like such a waste... I know so many bright people who totally burned out trying to chase this "well-rounded education" dream, and because of that, they ended up way less prepared for the careers they actually love. It's such a double-edged sword, though... you could learn everything and maybe find a passion, but man...

How am I even supposed to find the headspace to actually critique my physics experiments when I'm stuck drowning in textbooks about Abraham Lincoln, trying to memorize the US GDP, and reading endless stuff about the Romans... seriously...

I think so.
Don't see any massive flaws there.

Olivia Evans8 said:

Wait, are we really talking about servantes? Like, the actual concept? Because if we are... oh man... that opens up such a massive rabbit hole! I honestly could go on about this for hours... just thinking about how it all ties together... it's wild! Seriously though, let's dive in... kaže:
Man, I still remember back in '66 when I started first grade... we spent the entire year just grinding away at uppercase and lowercase letters. That was it! Just ABCs all day long...

When I say logic, I’m not talking about some boring math equation, okay? I mean the actual game of it! You gotta use simple little games to show them basic concepts first. Then, you slowly layer on the complexity, getting more and more precise until they finally land on the actual definition. Because honestly, what is a kid even going to do with a textbook definition? My brother was stuck in third grade being forced to memorize these super technical definitions for things like "media," "television," and "the TV set." Like, seriously? Do you even know the difference between a television and the concept of television? By the time you're 30 or 40, sure, you get it. But at nine years old? It’s just exhausting... and totally boring...

So, think about it... from elementary all the way through high school, they basically throw a massive pile of subjects at you, just hoping one of them actually sticks. But honestly, is that even the right way to do things? Ever since my freshman year, I knew math was the only thing that actually clicked for me. Everything else? Total snooze fest. But I still had to grind out those grades and waste so much precious time mastering stuff I’m probably never going to use in the real world. It feels like such a waste... I know so many bright people who totally burned out trying to chase this "well-rounded education" dream, and because of that, they ended up way less prepared for the careers they actually love. It's such a double-edged sword, though... you could learn everything and maybe find a passion, but man...

How am I even supposed to find the headspace to actually critique my physics experiments when I'm stuck drowning in textbooks about Abraham Lincoln, trying to memorize the US GDP, and reading endless stuff about the Romans... seriously...

Why did you have to grind for a GPA?
You could've just focused on math and let everything else slide.

Olivia Evans8 said:

Wait, are we really talking about servantes? Like, the actual concept? Because if we are... oh man... that opens up such a massive rabbit hole! I honestly could go on about this for hours... just thinking about how it all ties together... it's wild! Seriously though, let's dive in... kaže:
Man, I still remember back in '66 when I started first grade... we spent the entire year just grinding away at uppercase and lowercase letters. That was it! Just ABCs all day long...

When I say logic, I’m not talking about some boring math equation, okay? I mean the actual game of it! You gotta use simple little games to show them basic concepts first. Then, you slowly layer on the complexity, getting more and more precise until they finally land on the actual definition. Because honestly, what is a kid even going to do with a textbook definition? My brother was stuck in third grade being forced to memorize these super technical definitions for things like "media," "television," and "the TV set." Like, seriously? Do you even know the difference between a television and the concept of television? By the time you're 30 or 40, sure, you get it. But at nine years old? It’s just exhausting... and totally boring...

So, think about it... from elementary all the way through high school, they basically throw a massive pile of subjects at you, just hoping one of them actually sticks. But honestly, is that even the right way to do things? Ever since my freshman year, I knew math was the only thing that actually clicked for me. Everything else? Total snooze fest. But I still had to grind out those grades and waste so much precious time mastering stuff I’m probably never going to use in the real world. It feels like such a waste... I know so many bright people who totally burned out trying to chase this "well-rounded education" dream, and because of that, they ended up way less prepared for the careers they actually love. It's such a double-edged sword, though... you could learn everything and maybe find a passion, but man...

How am I even supposed to find the headspace to actually critique my physics experiments when I'm stuck drowning in textbooks about Abraham Lincoln, trying to memorize the US GDP, and reading endless stuff about the Romans... seriously...

Da Vinci managed to do it 😁
and so did Tesla.

So why do you think it's impossible just because you couldn't pull it off?
(My situation is the total opposite: I'm bummed I wasn't interested in certain things back in middle or high school, only to realize later how fascinating they are—now I'm just annoyed I'm weak in them. Physics, for example. It's usually down to lazy teachers who don't teach anything, don't demand anything, and fail to make the subject actually interesting.)
The silver lining is there’s nothing you can’t pick up later if you missed it early on.

But—if you never learned how to think, or if you lack complex concepts in your head—that's a lot harder to fix down the road.
(Not trying to be gatekeeper-ish by saying it's impossible, though when I see adults lacking those skills, I don't really see much room for improvement.)

Servantes—basically just a fancy way to describe those sidekick characters who only exist to serve the lead. It’s like having a Watson without the brains—just there to move the plot along. Joshua Hernandez9 says:
Look, you and Soul are both right. But I wasn't even bringing up language just because of how easy it is to pick up—it was strictly for comparison. In the States, kids start picking up second languages way earlier, like in preschool. Over in Sweden, they don't even touch it until they're ten. Why do you think that is?

Because a ton of psych studies have basically proven that kids are like sponges for picking up new languages when they're around 6 or 7—it's just how they're wired.

The thing is—most of that research was actually done over in Russia.

The West is just out here trying to pretend that science and scientists in Russia don't even exist—it's a joke.

He’s got this habit of taking ideas that were already old news a hundred years ago and trying to pass them off as some massive, groundbreaking scientific breakthrough—it's honestly a joke.

Peter Phillips32 said:It feels like😉, looking through your posts in this thread, there's this underlying misunderstanding that you keep trying to pin on everyone else.
You could really use a little logic to see the contradiction in what you're saying and realize how much you actually need to weed out the idiots.
I mean, don't you see you're just walking in circles here?

Furthermore, I totally agree that we're lagging behind when it comes to implementing new educational methods based on what we actually know about cognitive science. Why? Probably because people prioritize political correctness, profit, or just nepotism over actual psycho-physical needs. (And obviously, I'm talking about the vibe prevalent in America and other non-liberal countries)
But honestly, things aren't as bleak as half these posts make it seem (some people are just going off-topic, so I'm ignoring them).
I think it'll be obvious enough to anyone who actually bothers to pick up the books listed below regarding the direction needed for real improvement, so I don't feel the need to keep typing out my opinions.

If anyone is still interested in this topic, I'd recommend two books:
Carla Hannaford - Smart movement (from a psychological perspective on childhood education);
Konrad Paul Liessmann - Konrad Paul Liessmann - theory - delusion society knowledge (it's a current, controversial, and brilliantly articulated critique of the whole "knowledge society" concept—that's basically what's on the cover; this book is at a university level).
That should give you a solid look into what "complete" formal education looks like, both through the first book and via your own self-education.

Wait, now I'm curious.

Lagging behind who?

(You're always lagging behind someone)

And one more thing:

Zachary Turner6 said:Look, we can stop pretending—this issue is present across every single instance, and there’s really no point in trying to deny it or sweep it under the rug.

The sheer volume of information hitting kids these days—driven by rapid scientific breakthroughs and the genuine necessity to process it all—is making it nearly impossible for them to actually absorb anything. It’s overwhelming. This creates a desperate need for professional or scientific guidance at an earlier age, but that brings us to a massive catch-22: how is a fourth or fifth grader supposed to know what they’re actually interested in, let alone what they're good at? At that age, most kids haven't even been exposed to a fraction of the different scientific fields or career paths out there, much less studied them enough to feel any kind of pull toward one. We’re essentially asking them to pick a lane before they even know what a road looks like. Of course, this leaves the entire weight of the situation—from explaining why education matters and sparking a child's curiosity to ensuring the quality and method of teaching itself—resting squarely on... professional To all the educators—teachers, professors, mentors—of whom we are, unfortunately, in such short supply: the current plan is poorly conceived, and even worse, it’s being executed poorly. I hate to say it—and please excuse the few honorable exceptions who are doing incredible work—but much of our teaching staff simply isn't meeting the increasingly complex needs of today's students. Some are struggling because they've been handed an impossible task through no fault of their own, while others... well, let's just say a lack of skill or motivation is playing a role here too.

My ongoing experience as a student in the philosophy department has led me to a rather grim realization—one that keeps me up at night—regarding my future colleagues. One day soon, many of these people will be entrusted with the responsibility of shaping and directing young minds. The problem? Most of these future "professors" handle programming languages about as skillfully as I’d handle deciphering medieval Manchu—which is to say, not at all. As for actually assembling a computer from scratch? That’s pure science fiction to them. Now, look, I’m not suggesting a professor needs to be a master technician, but if you're going to teach theory, your grasp of it should at least be flawless. Computer science, in particular, moves at a breakneck pace compared to almost any other field. Because of that rapid evolution, an educator in this discipline can't just graduate and call it a day; their education has to be a lifelong pursuit. Of course, I think that applies to professors in every field—it's just that given how fast tech is shifting under our feet, the stakes feel much higher in CS.

The situation here in America is even more dire. We have an entire generation that can’t seem to grasp the brilliance of Hemingway, Faulkner, or Steinbeck—and if they can't connect with those giants now, how on earth are they supposed to pass that torch to their own kids one day? It feels like we're losing the thread entirely.
What exactly is the end goal for these American studies students who can barely string together a coherent sentence in English, let alone draft a single semi-professional paper without tripping over their own grammar? Are they expected to become editors or teachers? It seems a bit ambitious to suggest someone could be a literature professor when they can't even manage three sentences regarding the importance of Marko Marulić to our literary heritage.

A lack of motivation combined with a visible deficit in actual expertise—especially in an unseasoned educator—is a dead giveaway that they’ve chosen the wrong career path. It’s a heavy burden for responsible employers to shoulder; they have to recognize this early and deny these individuals the chance to fail, because letting someone through due to sheer negligence means depriving kids and young adults of the quality education they deserve. Of course, that leads to the unfortunate reality where most new educators will struggle to find work—if they can find any at all—though, let's be honest, that's already the case in most parts of the country.

Of course, we can't just pin this entire mess on the teaching staff. It’s a bit shortsighted to act like the responsibility lies solely with them. Honestly, trying to motivate professors, administrators, or teachers to actually excel at their jobs is a losing battle when you consider the reality of their situation—they are largely underpaid, undervalued, dismissed, and stripped of their professional dignity. These individuals carry an immense weight on their shoulders. The ones who are truly skilled and possess actual pedagogical talent should be treated as a massive national asset—indispensable, really—yet they find themselves marginalized in what we so pretentiously call a "knowledge society." It’s become a bit of a joke, hasn't it? In our current system, it feels like those who actually know how to do the work are ignored, while those who have no clue are the ones running the show.

The sheer chaos and mismanagement within our educational infrastructure—everything from funding elementary schools through universities to equipping facilities and actually paying staff, from professors down to the janitors—is escalating year after year. And the icing on this dysfunctional cake? The crumbling state of the entire academic system here in America. This so-called "knowledge society" seems to have a knack for talking a big game about intellectual capital, yet they can barely figure out how to recognize or value the very expertise they claim to rely on.

I'm with you on this one.

Joshua Hernandez9 said:First off—that's just wrong.
If you had said "most," maybe we could talk. But generalizing like that doesn't fly for a few reasons:

- Saying "every type of school" covers everything from now to ancient times—including something like a Pythagorean school, where people actually worked to find answers rather than just swallowing "pre-packaged" info.

- Even today, there's still discovery-based learning in schools—it's rare, sure, but it's why schools will always beat any computer-based learning. Google is just another way of serving up finished products. Even those lecture links people post here are basically just standard university lectures designed to deliver a final product—they have the least value when it comes to actually making a student think or get involved.

A package for elementary school?
Duh.
I don't know how things work elsewhere, but even here in the US, plenty of kids in 7th or 8th grade are sent to programs like Science Olympiad or specialized summer camps (not linking, so here's the gist: ). Those might be outside organizations, but they function like schools and work closely with local public schools.

In some high schools, research projects are part of the curriculum—which is how you actually make discoveries;

And at every major university, there are research institutes where students get involved starting freshman year (obviously, they don't take everyone—there's a selection process).

What you seem to be missing is this:

Knowledge isn't something humans just conjure out of thin air.
It's always built on what came before.
You have to master the existing foundation first if you ever want to actually discover something new.

So yeah, formal education is necessary.

I agree that "serving it up" is mostly a bad method—but it's unavoidable sometimes. You can't expect kids to "discover" the alphabet on their own; you have to give it to them. You can't reinvent digits or number systems until you've taught them how the current ones work.

The whole point of knowledge is that it’s basically our cultural inheritance.
Which means its whole purpose is to be passed down.
If it didn't work like that, everything someone learned would just die with them—and they wouldn't have gained much to begin with.

So, schools aren't there to fight the essence of knowledge, they're there to build upon it (as part of that cultural legacy).

What you just wrote—you learned it.
And now you're trying to teach it to others.

How is what you're doing any different from what a school does?

Also—why do you think what you just said can't be taught (or isn't being taught) in a school somewhere?

You're talking about the American school system here.
Sure, maybe it's like that elsewhere, but I know the American way firsthand—having been here, seeing kids struggling over textbooks and notebooks and sheer ignorance. And I remember how things were back when I was in elementary school.
I think even now (based on what people say from those areas), things are just as bad there as they are in most of the US.

It's not true that every single school, everywhere, handles it this way.
There are approaches where kids actually discover knowledge for themselves.
Google is acting up for me right now, but try searching for "hands-on learning" and see what comes up.

Not for me.
It's only about 50 yards from my house, and I spend a few hours there every single day. 😁

in America?
From what I've seen—yeah.

Same goes for Mexico, mostly yes, but for totally different reasons (mostly just incompetent staff)

I really love this concept. I wish we had something integrated into the standard American education system like what they have there.

It’s a bit difficult to respond to everything that’s been said so far (Richard Allen, great job with all those details 👍), but I’ll certainly try my best.

I am currently a sophomore in a math-focused high school, and speaking as someone actually in the thick of it, there is plenty of room for improvement in our educational system.
First off, there is a massive lack of coordination between middle school and high school. At least, that’s definitely the case here in the States. There is a huge amount of material that gets cut from the middle school curriculum, yet that exact same stuff is considered the fundamental foundation for high school. Consequently, high school teachers (take math, for example) have to spend hours re-teaching things students should already know by heart.
There is also an overwhelming amount of data being dumped on students daily through textbooks. Take a geography textbook, for instance—it’s just packed with useless, trivial facts.

Beyond that, the system itself isn't quite where it needs to be. I agree that we are served too much raw information, but I also realize that certain data points are impossible to skip, like the alphabet. What we really need to do is shift the focus toward teaching through comprehension rather than just mindless rote memorization!

By "rote memorization," I mean things like learning the phases of mitosis and meiosis. I know them all by heart (well, mostly :P ) simply because I spent countless hours outside of class repeating the names of the stages until they finally stuck.
On the other hand, take my ethics class. That is the one period where I never once study outside of school hours, yet I remember about 85% of what we cover. In my opinion, that’s because while I spend my biology period frantically scribbling down every phase of mitosis for homework, my ethics teacher lets us actually discuss the topics (of course, stepping in if we drift too far off track). Even if it takes seven class periods to get through two pages of a book, he waits for us to reach the conclusion ourselves regarding why humans differ from animals. He doesn't just dictate it to us to write down for a grade, nor does he force us to memorize it just to test us at the end of the year to gauge our knowledge like my biology teacher does.

To be honest, while I was reading all these empty comments on the thread, I had a flood of ideas on what to write, but now that I'm actually typing it out, I've forgotten most of them. I'll try to swing back by later to see how this discussion evolves. 🙂

EDIT: Regarding languages, I was offered electives in preschool and throughout middle school. I didn't start learning English formally until 4th grade, whereas my sister started in 1st grade. It wasn't until high school that I faced the reality of having a mandatory second language (which is a requirement in both academic and vocational tracks). I have to admit, I never actually "learned" English in a classroom setting; I basically picked it up from watching TV and using the computer later on. Because of that, I consistently pull A's or B's on exams, even though if you asked me to explain when to use the past perfect, I'd look at you like a deer in headlights (since I don't know the grammar rules and, frankly, I never needed them). Dictation used to be a struggle, but today I can easily write a 500-word essay with maybe two or three mistakes. On the flip side, learning a language like Spanish just doesn't come naturally to me. I can read it, but holding a conversation feels like an immense struggle—aside from a few basic introductory phrases, I can't really carry a dialogue. Meanwhile, some of my peers who are studying Spanish just as much as I am are significantly more advanced. This obviously ties back to watching shows frequently, which helps with pronunciation, sentence structure, vocabulary, and overall interest. I don't have that spark for English; it wasn't particularly attractive to me, so I just chose it because it was recommended as the easiest option.
To give you some perspective, my peers back in New York City—I’m currently based down in Miami—have Japanese offered as an elective alongside several other options. Down here, my choices are limited to Spanish, German, French, or Italian. Honestly, my grasp of Spanish might actually be a bit stronger than my Japanese, even though I taught myself the language out of pure passion for the culture, specifically through manga and anime 🙂
. That’s pretty much the situation.

Joshua Hernandez9 went off the rails a bit by just playing along with the thread—nothing was wrong per se, it just wasn't what we should actually be talking about.

Here’s the real topic:

If you view society as an organism, then the school system is basically its reproductive organ.
That’s the design—it's the mechanism used to keep the neighborhood going by churning out the specific types of people the community requires.

The education system is ALWAYS a mirror of what society needs; society built it this way, keeps it running this way, and you can tell everything you need to know about a culture just by looking at its schools.

I spent a long time under the delusion that teachers were incredibly important—not because of who they were individually, but because of this supposed "sacred mission."
(honestly, I'm still feeling the effects of that lie... haven't quite shaken it off yet)
By "sacred mission," I mean the idea of molding a child into a functional human being (dammit, even now that thought sticks around. You don't just drop delusions like that. And honestly? I'm not even sure if it was entirely a delusion to begin with)

The delusion stuck harder because I was lucky enough to mostly run into top-tier teachers—people who treated us like actual humans they were helping grow up—and since there were so few idiots among them, I did what anyone would do: I generalized that experience to the whole system. Which, predictably, was a total mistake.

Later on, I met plenty of brilliant people who had the exact opposite experience—they dealt with terrible teachers or straight-up morons. I don't see how that hurt them—if anything, fighting through that nonsense probably helped shape them into the people they are today.

But listen—"building a person" is my thing, not the goal of the education system.
The system is designed to build conformists.
If a school system uses its curriculum, textbooks, and staff to produce nothing but ignorance, then you have to ask why society finds that useful.
In other words—why is stupidity being treated as a feature, not a bug?

Joshua Hernandez9 said:Just now.

Look, kids don't need to soak up every single bit of data—it's just not how it works.
Kids need to learn how to actually think—and more importantly, how to hunt down the right info on their own.

Some stuff you gotta lock in because it’s the foundation—but other things? Total waste of brain space to memorize.

Plus, elementary school should basically just be the training ground for lifelong learning—period.

4th and 5th grade isn't about pigeonholing kids early—even if things like elective coding or art classes feel like they’re pushing them toward a career path. It’s really just about building that core knowledge base and helping them develop actual thought and language through decentration.

Yeah, I'm with you—they're the ones who dropped the ball here.
And they deserve to take the hit.

Incompetence and zero motivation are the main culprits.

Spot on!

Whenever someone tries to criticize the education system, the faculty immediately teams up to scream, "We're professionally trained for this!"
Yeah, right.
There's no point in using "we"—it's not a collective effort.

Back when I was in college, there was this girl, Violet, who spent her entire education just focusing on her makeup, hiding under her desk.
Her dad was some bigshot executive, so thanks to him—and the fact that teachers got bored looking at her—she somehow coasted through and grabbed a degree.

I remember she couldn't even name the parts of a flower.

Now, I'm working in a school with someone who actually thinks Shakespeare was Italian.

So—no, finishing school and getting a piece of paper doesn't mean you're actually qualified.
(Which brings the whole value of the education system into question again)

Oh, I know how.
Just look at the reading lists in elementary schools (mostly garbage texts) and the way they handle the few decent ones, and it’ll be obvious.

(The reason here is different: it mostly comes down to the staff. When a school organizes a trip to a book fair, half the teachers hijack the bus and stop in Chicago on the way just to visit relatives—using free transport for a road trip. The ones who actually make it to the fair just buy cookbooks or celebrity memoirs. The actual reading lists have great texts, but you need someone who actually knows how to work with kids to analyze them.)

says:
Sure, it’s not just on the educators—but let’s be real, knowing that most teachers are underpaid, undervalued, and basically treated like garbage doesn't exactly help their drive to actually do a good job.

Hold up, I'm gonna have to disagree there.
Why would anyone pay you a premium if you aren't pulling your weight?
Back when I lived in the States, salaries used to fluctuate—there was one stretch where we were actually making decent money (for about a year). The quality of the work didn't change one bit.
There was this proposal floating around to move toward merit-based pay—basically, testing all the kids six or seven times a year to track individual progress, then using those scores to determine how much each teacher gets paid.
The teachers went on a massive strike against it, so the whole thing died in committee.
Shame.

Exactly. It feels like we’ve finally managed to peel back the layers and actually hit the core of the issue.

Fourth and fifth grade shouldn't be about pigeonholing kids into specific career paths—though, let's be honest, having electives like computer science, ecology, or art classes acts as a sort of soft guidance toward their interests. The real goal here should be to build a solid foundation of knowledge and, more importantly, to help them develop the cognitive ability to step outside their own little bubbles and see the bigger picture.

It’s a bit of a domino effect, isn't it? It all starts with those middle school grades from seventh and eighth grade—which dictate where they head for high school—then that leads directly into college admissions, which eventually determines their career path or whether they decide to pursue advanced degrees. It’s essentially one long, interconnected chain of academic decisions that sets the trajectory for their entire adult life.

That’s exactly why I made a point to specify the fifth and sixth grades.
Any competent teacher or school counselor can spot exactly where a kid shines and where they tend to struggle—identifying which subjects spark their curiosity and which ones just feel like a chore. The real key, though, is actually communicating those insights to the parents. If parents engage in meaningful dialogue with their kids about these patterns, they can help them navigate the daunting process of picking a career path or deciding on a college major. I really want to emphasize the word "help" here. Even though kids are young and, frankly, haven't a clue what they're doing yet, we need to empower them to think independently. We should be encouraging them to start making their own decisions—even small ones—that will eventually shape their lives. It’s about providing a safety net, sure, but not one that dictates their every move. They need guidance, but they also need the space to figure out who they are.

I’m inclined to agree—the responsibility for that mess falls squarely on their shoulders.
And frankly, they deserve to get hit by the rain.

Exactly. That’s quite literally what they get paid for.

It really comes down to two things—incompetence and a total lack of motivation. That's the core of the issue.

It’s high time we acknowledged that a lack of motivation is often just a mask for incompetence. When you actually give a damn about what you’re doing—when it truly sparks something in you—you don't settle for mediocrity. You push to be at least decent, if not outright exceptional. It’s simple, really.

It’s funny how it works—the moment someone dares to point out the cracks in our education system, you get this immediate, unified chorus of defensive shouting. It’s always the same predictable refrain: "We are highly trained professionals for exactly what we do!" As if a credential acts as some kind of bulletproof vest against legitimate criticism.

In a perfect educational system, that little scrap of paper would actually serve as a genuine guarantee—a promise that you possess the actual knowledge and expertise required to back up your claims. Of course, it shouldn't cost employers much more to run a bit of due diligence; even among those walking around with straight-A diplomas, there’s a massive spectrum of actual ability. Not everyone is a fit for every role, either—some industries are perfectly fine with mediocrity, while others demand nothing less than the absolute best. That said, there ought to be a baseline level of competency required for any given profession. Ideally, that bar should be constantly rising—as we progress, our collective standard for what constitutes "average" should move upward—and most importantly, those standards need to be clearly defined by law, transparent, and actually measurable.

Look—finishing school and holding a diploma doesn't automatically make someone an expert.
(which really calls the whole concept of formal education into question)

Exactly.

Oh, I know how it works.
Just take a look at any elementary school reading list—mostly mindless drivel—and see how they handle the few decent pieces that actually make the cut, and you'll get the picture.

I'm with you there. And honestly, I can't help but regret that our curriculum lacks authors like Mark Twain, unknown, Jack Kerouac, and George Bernard Shaw—all brilliant writers who would actually resonate with kids today. But hey, I guess they aren't "politically correct" enough.🙄

Of course, literature should primarily nurture its own traditions, but that should never be an excuse for an educational system to prioritize a superficial introduction to foreign classics over a deep understanding of our own heritage.

(In our case, the reason is different: it mostly comes down to the staff. When a school organizes a trip to a book fair, teachers hop on the bus, and half of them end up stopping halfway through a trip to New York just to visit relatives using free school transport. The ones who actually make it to the fair end up buying whatever's trendy. There are great texts available, but you need someone who actually knows how to teach them to children.)

It’s about knowing the material, sure, but it’s also about instilling a genuine love for reading. Kids will despise Homer for the rest of their lives if you force them to slog through hexameters when they're fourteen. But if they read something like Gustav Schwab's (The Most Beautiful Stories of Classical Antiquity, which includes a prose retelling of the Iliad and the [*I*/Odyssey*][/I]), I believe most would be hooked (since those stories are genuinely gripping—full of intrigue, outlaws, mythical creatures, etc.😁), potentially sparking a lifelong desire to eventually tackle Homer in the original language. That's just one example; I won't go too far off-topic, as I've already ranted about similar issues on the Literature forum.

Wait, I disagree.
Why would anyone pay you well if you aren't doing your job properly?
Here in the States, salaries have fluctuated—there was a brief period where we were paid quite well. The quality of work didn't change during that time.
There was even a proposal to pay teachers based on performance (essentially testing all students six or seven times a year to track individual progress and then basing compensation on those metrics).
The teachers revolted en masse against the idea, so it never passed.
A real shame.

My point was that we need to identify and reward truly skilled, effective educators. If we underpay everyone indiscriminately, we lose the incentive for anyone to excel. However, if we can distinguish the talented from the mediocre—rewarding the former with praise, social standing, and, of course, proper financial compensation—then we'll build a faculty that actually loves what they do, knows how to do it, and performs consistently. It's common sense: people perform better when they're satisfied with their work and appropriately compensated for it.

Joshua Hernandez9 said:Joshua Hernandez9 went off the rails a bit by just playing along with the thread—nothing was wrong per se, it just wasn't what we should actually be talking about.

Here’s the real topic:

If you view society as an organism, then the school system is basically its reproductive organ.
That’s the design—it's the mechanism used to keep the neighborhood going by churning out the specific types of people the community requires.

The education system is ALWAYS a mirror of what society needs; society built it this way, keeps it running this way, and you can tell everything you need to know about a culture just by looking at its schools.

I spent a long time under the delusion that teachers were incredibly important—not because of who they were individually, but because of this supposed "sacred mission."
(honestly, I'm still feeling the effects of that lie... haven't quite shaken it off yet)
By "sacred mission," I mean the idea of molding a child into a functional human being (dammit, even now that thought sticks around. You don't just drop delusions like that. And honestly? I'm not even sure if it was entirely a delusion to begin with)

The delusion stuck harder because I was lucky enough to mostly run into top-tier teachers—people who treated us like actual humans they were helping grow up—and since there were so few idiots among them, I did what anyone would do: I generalized that experience to the whole system. Which, predictably, was a total mistake.

Later on, I met plenty of brilliant people who had the exact opposite experience—they dealt with terrible teachers or straight-up morons. I don't see how that hurt them—if anything, fighting through that nonsense probably helped shape them into the people they are today.

But listen—"building a person" is my thing, not the goal of the education system.
The system is designed to build conformists.
If a school system uses its curriculum, textbooks, and staff to produce nothing but ignorance, then you have to ask why society finds that useful.
In other words—why is stupidity being treated as a feature, not a bug?

I certainly respect my American colleague's idealism and find myself fully supporting her perspective. 🙂🙂

On that note: a society filled with people incapable of independent thought is useless to everyone. We have no need for "expert" drones—after all, we have books, computers, and the internet for rote memorization. What we actually require are individuals who can critically analyze data, connect disparate fields of study, build upon existing knowledge, and effectively apply it.
Furthermore, society doesn't benefit from those who are merely "conversationalists"—people who act like experts but are actually laymen in every field they touch. I can certainly hold my own in a conversation about string theory, genome cloning, or chaos theory over a coffee with friends or on an online forum, but I must possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics, biology, or physics first. That kind of foundation is built through years of rigorous education—whether through a university degree or disciplined self-study within professional, merit-based circles that can actually vet one's knowledge—to ensure any debate I engage in is actually substantive and contributes to the broader understanding or application of these concepts.

P.S.: Excellent signature. 🤣

.. schoolteachers always sang songs about whoever was footing the bill .. whether it was under FDR .. under various dictators .. or during the Third Reich ..
.. is there anything more predictable than that? ..

.. you might think someone like that didn't truly grasp the nature of humanity -- but I don't see what gives you the right to think you do ..

redtinker36 said:.. schoolteachers always sang songs about whoever was footing the bill .. whether it was under FDR .. under various dictators .. or during the Third Reich ..
.. is there anything more predictable than that? ..

.. you might think someone like that didn't truly grasp the nature of humanity -- but I don't see what gives you the right to think you do ..

I’m replying to this post out of sheer boredom: where on earth did I ever claim to know the true nature of man, and how—for heaven's sake—does that even relate to the topic at hand?