-=> Quoting Ron McDermott to Michael Martinez <=-
 RM> Which is not what your statement up top is saying; if you
 RM> are eliminating people that don't hack it, then you are 
 RM> certifying that the others DID....
 
a lot more people are eliminated then ones that make it.  Which
shows how unfair it is.
 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.
 RM> Yes, but much more of WHAT, and after they've learned it,
 RM> was it good for anything?
It's good for something if they are interested in it, yes.  You're
missing the point that these same people drop out of school now as it
stands, or are excluded from the school system after high school.
 RM> How many would get really good
 RM> at grammar, math, science, I wonder?
Who says those are things that we all must pursue?   How many students
get good at them _now_?  Not many.  Believe me, even at the college
level.
Why are math and science touted so much, as opposed to other things?
Because math and science are WHAT DRIVES OUR INDUSTRY AND OUR MILITARY,
and makes us a leading force in the world.  I guarantee you if math and
science weren't necessary to make cars, television, tanks, and computers,
you would be mentioning art, history and theology instead.
 
 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.
 RM> Maybe I'm not following this.... Let them goof off for
 RM> however many years they want, and then when they're 25 or
 RM> so, they'll take time off from work and family to learn?
If they want.  Or when they're 45 or 60.  In a non-schooled system,
there will be plenty, better quality opportunities for them to learn
at work, etc.  without "taking time off".  It won't be a big, old
deal to "go to school" where you have to take time off for an entire
semester.
 RM> Why is it that I doubt this will work?
Because you haven't thought about it.
 RM> And how is the
 RM> opportunity to learn going to be any more available than
 RM> it is now?  They can go to school young or old right now.
Because it won't be a _funded institution_ which monopolizes the market.
 
 MM>Exactly.  But they don't have the same opportunities for employment
 MM>or in the academic system that someone with a degree does.  
 RM> Depends on their credentials... Teaching degrees are 
 RM> customarily waived in the case of occupational education, 
 RM> for example...
 
Occupational education excludes a lot of other areas where I think
they should be able to teach what they want, unhindered.
How many people do you know who are teaching college who didn't go
to college?  I don't know any.  You see, it's a cliquish thing, it's
a club with the power to exclude whoever doesn't pass its approval.
But the problem is, it's the only club that's funded in a major way
with government funds, it's the only one that officially endorsed.
 RM> Hmmm.... Do not the people exclude themselves to a large 
 RM> extent?
 
 MM>Absolutely not.
 RM> This is a silly response, and ignores the fact that many
 RM> people simply refuse to make an effort to succeed.
They're refusing to succeed in a _predesigned_, prefabricated, narrow
system.   That's just not fair.  If they make the choice not to succeed
in an open, opportunity-rich system, then that's fine.  I won't defend
them.  But they are not given the choice.
The educational system we are involved in, is quite culturally-specific.
We turn our noses on the American Indians because they don't take advantage
of their offers of free education.  But they didn't ask for our educational
system.  They didn't ask for our schools.  They're way of thinking is
very different, AND NOT INFERIOR, to our European way of thinking.  Schools
are a European thing.  So we should force this on everyone, and deny them
any other opportunity to learn? 
Do you begin to see how narrow our educational system is?  Not only is it
narrow, it is inherently inflexible.  We cannot make it any less narrow.
 RM> Your argument casts people as helpless victims of outside
 RM> forces over which they have no control.  This is simply not
 RM> a realistic point of view, in most respects.
It's not that they're helpless victims, it's that they (we) are given a very
narrow range of things to select from.  Very narrow.  You either play by
the rules, or you forfeit your opportunities.   Do you think that's fair?
Do you think that it promotes learning?  It doesn't.   It _restricts_
learning.
 
 RM> Most things in this life require that you meet some 
 RM> qualification or other, and that has to be certified by
 RM> some sort of documentation or other...
That has been the case only very recently.  It's a 20th century 
phenomenon.  We survived and thrived as a human race for thousands
of years without that being the case.
 RM> way it is... Are you telling me that you would accept a
 RM> doctor, lawyer, financial adviser, etc for your needs and
 RM> not expect (require) some sort of references?
Yes.
 RM> I find that hard to accept... 
 
Why?
 MM>I don't think anyone learns _anything_ in high school.
 RM> Uh huh....
 
Well you just cleared that up for all of us.  Do you mind explaining
yourself, please?
 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....
 
Question away.   The fact is, what do you need to learn in school that
is essential for you to live, marry and raise a family?
-michael
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR]
---------------