I agree with the general sentiment that education needs to be overhauled but I feel that you undervalue literature and history. Hopefully someone comes along that is more qualified than I am to speak about this.
There must be better ways to teach algebra and higher math, science, history, literature, etc. But to say they are useless is bonkers to me. Especially at a time where menial jobs are at great risk due to outsourcing and automation. The solution has to be more and better education, not less. I don't know how you expect people who know basic math, reading, and writing to succeed.
> Especially at a time where menial jobs are at great risk due to outsourcing and automation.
This is what is so frustrating to me. Tons of people on this site say "more people should be going to college because the lower class is getting screwed," but fail to acknowledge that an enormous chunk of the population is mentally unable to obtain a degree, and that higher degree attainment rates doesn't help the issue because it devalues the degree and makes it where young people basically must get a degree to get a good job, forcing an entire generation into massive amounts of debt before even starting their career.
Instead of expecting the half of the population with IQs lower than 100 to suddenly get an advanced degree and move to a large city, we need to do something about the negative effects that globalization and capital concentration have had on our nation. We need to make it so that quality of life for our lower class goes up as time goes on, not down.
Right. These people are getting hammered. We have to find a way to let them be productive at something that isn't simple enough to be done by machines or laborers in developing countries. College is not feasible for them, but neither is neutered education.
> but I feel that you undervalue literature and history
Fair enough. I said folks don't "need" history and lit, but I probably should have said that they don't want them or care about them as they are currently taught.
As I mentioned, I think the history should be primarily local, and primarily focused on learning how to think and learn about history rather than just memorizing a bunch of facts.
I think literature should be salient to the audience rather than the (relatively) high-brow art that is the current canon. That would mean that "poetry" would probably look at more contemporary music lyrics (e.g., rap, country, rock, etc.). "Drama" would look at whatever TV series are popular rather than Shakespeare. This is the kind of stuff that people who are usually not interested in education would be very much engaged with.
Even something as off the wall as Judge Judy could be used to teach some basic law/civics.
> There must be better ways to teach algebra and higher math, science, history, literature, etc. But to say they are useless is bonkers to me.
They are useless as currently taught because most of the learners and their communities completely do not care about them -- the content is completely disconnected from many learners' day-to-day existence. Not only that, but for many learners who do show some interest in these topics, they will likely be ostracized.
As such, teaching these subjects better within the current paradigm (i.e., oriented towards college prep) is a bridge to nowhere.
None of these subjects will be highly engaged with by a learner until that learner's peers think that these subjects are important. At that point, learning can and will happen. Sadly, most people are not in a proper/efficient education setting at that point.
Feel free to follow up -- this topic needs to be discussed more by intelligent people. Your reply brought up several great points.
A problem, but not the core of it all. People have been compromising, and adjusting positions based on expert opinion, for quite awhile. I just wanted to raise the issue about the livelihood of the lower economic class.
> Especially at a time where menial jobs are at great risk due to outsourcing and automation.
Much of our post-automation world will largely consist of what might be called "menial" jobs.
Specifically, our economy will evolve such that things that are uniquely human will be where the jobs are. Specifically, jobs that require creativity, communication, and/or trust-building that is relatively easy for humans to do and relatively difficult for machines to do. In fact, I suggest that some of the best jobs today fall into this category -- entertainer, high-end sales (this includes professions like finance, accounting, lawyering, etc.), artisan, merchant, etc.
In the future, there may be way more mundane jobs along the lines of Walmart greeter, but those will be where the value-add is, imho. Note that this human element largely does not require knowledge of biology, Shakespeare, etc.
There must be better ways to teach algebra and higher math, science, history, literature, etc. But to say they are useless is bonkers to me. Especially at a time where menial jobs are at great risk due to outsourcing and automation. The solution has to be more and better education, not less. I don't know how you expect people who know basic math, reading, and writing to succeed.