-=> Quoting Ron McDermott to Michael Martinez <=-
 MM>The grade system that we have, is a certification of how _little_ 
 MM>somebody knows.
 RM> I'm not sure I get this one... It seems to me that one could
 RM> argue the opposite equally well...
 
School tends to effectively eliminate people that don't hack it.  But
this is only justified on a curriculum and a method of learning that
_other_ people demand.  The students that drop out, are instantly
disqualified from getting many jobs, advancing their learning in 
other areas, and so on.  But, under a different system of learning,
where it's easy for you to learn what _you're_ interested in,
these very same students would be much more excited, they would learn
much more and they would effectively acquire the skills that they
want, _when_ they want.  If they want to goof off when they're young,
that's fine, but the opportunity will be there whenever they want
it, and they don't need to provide proof of some diploma to use it.
Why should you provide a certificate of graduation to learn something
or teach something that you want?  It's ridiculous. 
 MM>You must pass college to be able to teach college.  If not, you 
 MM>are not a learned scholar.
 RM> That's simply not the case... There are LOTS of people who
 RM> are scholarly through their own efforts at education...
 
Exactly.  But they don't have the same opportunities for employment
or in the academic system that someone with a degree does.  
 MM>This has the effect of excluding people from the educational process.
 RM> Hmmm.... Do not the people exclude themselves to a large 
 RM> extent?
Absolutely not.  Most people in high school aren't interested in
schoool, right?  But if things were fair in this country, that wouldn't
automatically deny them:  college, a whole range of jobs that require
an educational degree, positions of authority.
It's the difference being being _forced_ to learn something, and
learning something because you're excited about it and want to.  The
school system forces you.  It's not there to provide services that 
we're interested in.  We _have_ to go to school.  That doesn't promote
learning, it promotes forced obedience.  Sure, some people learn, they're
the people who are inclined to learn under such conditions.  But, shouldn't
learning be tailored to _everybody_?
 RM> Do you find our educational system SO difficult
 RM> that a person trying to succeed cannot?
Our educational system isn't difficult, it's boring.  I love science
and art, but I'll tell you I wasn't interested in high school at all.
It was nothing but a chore for me.  I don't think anyone learns
_anything_ in high school.  I think high school stifles teachers who
love and want to teach.
 MM>Now, most people in our country learn all they need to know from
 MM>they're own lives, not from school.
 RM> I'd question whether this is true....
 
Someone who doesn't go to school at all, learns how to speak a language,
how to cook, how to tie his shoes, how to work, how to have a family, how
to be socially graceful from their friends.  No one learns that stuff
from school. 
 MM>You don't learn how to survive from school.
 RM> Without the training I received IN school, I would not be
 RM> working in my present occupation.  Seems to me that it was
 RM> necessary for MY survival?!
 
If you didn't go to school, you'd be surviving by doing something
else, I guarantee you that.  So, no, you don't learn how to survive
from school.
 MM>You learn it from your family.
 RM> I learned SOME stuff from my family, and SOME of the stuff
 RM> that people learn from THEIR families is hurtful!
 
But most of it isn't.  If it was, we would be a completely dysfunctional
society.  I mean, we wouldn't be where we are today.  We'd be back
in the Stone Age.
 MM>People learn their best when they are interested in something, when
 MM>they are excited by something, and when they are actively involved,
 MM>hands-on in the process.
 RM> I'll buy this...
 
So tell me, who gets excited in high school?  
 MM>Schools aren't institutions of _learning_.   They are institutions
 MM>that weed out and groom various degrees of people to serve various
 MM>functions in society.
 RM> Semantics....
 
No, it's more than semantics.  Weeding out people is not the 
definition of learning.  It has absolutely nothing to do with learning.
It is the process of making sure that there are people who will
grow up to serve very specific functions in society.
You say "semantics" because we are ingrained in this process, to the
point where we think that's what learning is.  But is it?  Think about
it.  What is the definition of learning?  Does it have anything to
do with being weeded out?  No, of course not.
So you see, the weeding out process, is _indoctrination_.  It's
good business, from the perspective of policy-makers and corporations,
that's all.
 MM>The greatest feat of every human on this planet is not learned in
 MM>school:  learning your first language.
 RM> Which can be done by memorization and mimicry; two of the
 RM> lowest of the cognitive processes...
 
Oh contrare.  Learning a language is an incredible feat.  We are the
only species on the planet that does it.  Memorization and mimicry doesn't
teach a chimp to speak and understand one of our languages.
 MM>It is the history of the Promethean endeavor to forge institutions 
 MM>in order to corral each of the rampant ills.
 RM> As opposed to raising up temples of worship to them?
 RM> Other than being very flowery, what is this meant to convey?
It conveys the history of human endeavor.  It's a mythological attempt
to describe our _purpose_ and why we do what we do.  I mean, why
_do_ we go around forging things and being so determined in our actions
in this world?  The Promethean explanation is one of the best ones
I've come across.
-michael
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]
---------------