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...
 
MM>School tends to effectively eliminate people that don't hack it.
Which is not what your statement up top is saying; if you
are eliminating people that don't hack it, then you are 
certifying that the others DID....
MM>But, under a different system of learning, where it's easy for you 
MM>to learn what _you're_ interested in, these very same students would 
MM>be much more excited, they would learn much more and they would 
MM>effectively acquire the skills that they want, _when_ they want.
Yes, but much more of WHAT, and after they've learned it,
was it good for anything?  How many would get really good
at grammar, math, science, I wonder?
MM>If they want to goof off when they're young, that's fine, but the 
MM>opportunity will be there whenever they want it, and they don't 
MM>need to provide proof of some diploma to use it.
Maybe I'm not following this.... Let them goof off for
however many years they want, and then when they're 25 or
so, they'll take time off from work and family to learn?
Why is it that I doubt this will work?  And how is the
opportunity to learn going to be any more available than
it is now?  They can go to school young or old right now.
MM>Why should you provide a certificate of graduation to learn something
MM>or teach something that you want?  It's ridiculous. 
You don't; there are lots of people who are motivated to
learn on their own, and who do so... As to teaching, one
must come up with SOME credentials in order to attract
students; the nature of the credentials may vary, but they
have to be there nonetheless...
 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...
 
MM>Exactly.  But they don't have the same opportunities for employment
MM>or in the academic system that someone with a degree does.  
Depends on their credentials... Teaching degrees are 
customarily waived in the case of occupational education, 
for example...
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?
MM>Absolutely not.
This is a silly response, and ignores the fact that many
people simply refuse to make an effort to succeed.  They
eliminate themselves every bit as much as being eliminated.
Your argument casts people as helpless victims of outside
forces over which they have no control.  This is simply not
a realistic point of view, in most respects.  Ignoring an 
opposing argument simply because it is inconvenient or is 
not in line with your thinking is not very convincing....
MM>But if things were fair in this country, that wouldn't automatically 
MM>deny them:  college, a whole range of jobs that require an educational 
MM>degree, positions of authority.
Most things in this life require that you meet some 
qualification or other, and that has to be certified by
some sort of documentation or other... That's simply the
way it is... Are you telling me that you would accept a
doctor, lawyer, financial adviser, etc for your needs and
not expect (require) some sort of references?  I find that
hard to accept... 
MM>I don't think anyone learns _anything_ in high school.
Uh huh....
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....
 
MM>Someone who doesn't go to school at all, learns how to speak a language,

.
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
---------------