Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yellow Fever

IQ / Education & Brexit escape thread.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

I'm seeing a pattern here. The minute you start trying to look like George Best, the minute you start to rant like a drunk George Best.

When asked why he why he joined Vancouver Whitecaps, George said "I saw a sign on a London bus which said "Drink Canada Dry" and I thought I'd give it a go"

ūüėÄ

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A major problem with the British publics understanding of the issues of the day is the standard of journalism. Not just the spin that we have come to expect, but also that the journalists and columnists themselves seem  to display a poor grasp on the subjects they are writing about (possibly, even if they haven't)

Exhibit 1, below, from the Daily Mail 

Can you solve this dragon's den contestant's equation?

I certainly couldn't solve it, despite having passed maths A level. Simply because it isn't a f√ļcking equation. It should be pretty obvious to anyone its not an equation, even if they don't recognize it as the notation to the opening of The Queen's Gambit¬†

I don't know what the journalist/sub-editor is trying to convey with this headline, maybe they see letters and numbers together and think the reader will relate to the word "equation" without thinking any further. Maybe they think it is some kind of alphanumeric alliteration 

Personally, I think it's ignorant 

Edited by How I Wrote Elastic Man
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

A major problem with the British publics understanding of the issues of the day is the standard of journalism. Not just the spin that we have come to expect, but also that the journalists and columnists themselves seem  to display a poor grasp on the subjects they are writing about (possibly, even if they haven't)

Exhibit 1, below, from the Daily Mail 

Can you solve this dragon's den contestant's equation?

I certainly couldn't solve it, despite having passed maths A level. Simply because it isn't a f√ļcking equation. It should be pretty obvious to anyone its not an equation, even if they don't recognize it as the notation to the opening of The Queen's Gambit¬†

I don't know what the journalist/sub-editor is trying to convey with this headline, maybe they see letters and numbers together and think the reader will relate to the word "equation" without thinking any further. Maybe they think it is some kind of alphanumeric alliteration 

Personally, I think it's ignorant 

The writer knew full well what was on the t shirt.  Its not ignorance on their part.   Manipualtion maybe, but not Ignorance 

I dont suppose 'Man wears t shirt with chess notation' as a headline would have had you posting and inviting everyone to click...

 

 

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

The writer knew full well what was on the t shirt.  Its not ignorance on their part.   Manipualtion maybe, but not Ignorance 

I dont suppose 'Man wears t shirt with chess notation' as a headline would have had you posting and inviting everyone to click...

 

 

You can read this piece as implicitly asserting that chess notation amounts to a form of equation, which is actually promoting ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/01/2023 at 12:59, sonyc said:

Very good points B. Education in my day (less so nowadays) was often about learning facts and a bank of information. The ability to question seems to me about the ability to see oneself as an individual, not a cog in the system (call it what you will...if you are a Paulo Freire follower you would say it's about the education system and dominant (capitalist) belief system). It's why we ought to teach the ability of young people how to challenge the status quo, how to be curious, how to be more self aware.

Greta Thunberg is a remarkable example I often think when I see her on TV. Whatever one thinks of her, she is very challenging in her questions of others.

It's precisely why Socrates distinguished knowledge (of) from wisdom (about). In Plato's Apology Socrates explains to a court why he encouraged young people to think for themselves rather than simply accept the professed wisdom of those who claimed to have superior knowledge, such as Athenian politicians. He explains that his reputation for being the wisest man in Athens rested on one piece of knowledge alone; that he knows he doesn't know anything. Wisdom, he says, consists in recognition of one's own ignorance. If one recognises that fundamental truth one will always need to keep an open mind and engage in critical enquiry every day of one's life. Socrates, of course, knew many things (that he was human, an Athenian, a man etc, etc) but recognised that wisdom consisted in being prepared to question the significance or meaning of those pieces of knowledge. His role, he thought, was not to tell the youth of Athens what to think, but to act like a midwife and help them give birth to their own understanding. Needless to say the authorities found him guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens and put him to death.

Several centuries later the greatest philosopher of the modern era, Immanuel Kant, proclaimed that the most profound intellectual and social change in the history of Western culture, the Enlightenment, was best best summed up by the motto "Sapere Aude" (variously translated as "dare to think", "dare to be wise", "have the courage to think for yourself"). So, one of the most knowledgeable men in the world at that time described Enlightenment not as the accumulation of facts, but the development of the ability and will to think for oneself.

When I was lecturing I used to do outreach in schools to encourage children from less advantaged backgrounds to consider continuing into further education. I would begin with the simple question regarding what the thought was the point of education. Of course they responded with the expected replies that it was about "learning stuff/facts", about "getting a good job" etc. Essentially, a standard (not wrong) means/end rationality for enduring the process of education. However, the minute we began to discuss the thoughts of Socrates, Kant, Descartes etc about education being more fundamentally concerned with their own personal development, about becoming an individual able to think for themself, there would typically be a quite remarkable transformation in the class dynamic and engagement. Learning stuff then becomes not just a boring necessity to pass exams, but a means by which each individual develops their ability to think for themself, a source of self-respect and sense of transformative personal power. Feedback from the children and teachers from these sessions remain a source of pride (and I really don't care who wants to accuse me of egotistical self-satisfaction). Cleverness will vary, but all possess the power to think for themselves and it should be the primary function of an education system to enable each individual to develop that ability to fulness of their potential. 

Perhaps the fundamental point I'm driving at here is that developing the willingness to learn is as important (if not more important) as developing cleverness (be that measured by IQ or otherwise). I think it a major failing of our modern education system that children do not have the will to learn placed at the centre of their engagement with the knowledge they are taught. An education system that does not engage the will of all the students in a common project of personal self-development is an education system that ensures a divide between those who are able to display their cleverness from those who feel alienated by their "failure" to be clever. Perhaps we shouldn't then be surprised that we end up with the sort of divisive and entrenched disagreement evidenced by the Brexit vote and its aftermath.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps the fundamental point I'm driving at here is that developing the willingness to learn is as important (if not more important) as developing cleverness (be that measured by IQ or otherwise). I think it a major failing of our modern education system that children do not have the will to learn placed at the centre of their engagement

I signed in just a moment and saw your reply H. So, I wanted to applaud your piece. I think you've touched on such an important thing - that the journey, the process of finding out something is a joy and an interest in itself. That you can have this curiosity I believe, will serve you well enough. I ought to make some (quite) personal references here and say that for me being curious does have a double-edged side to it. That's because you so often question yourself too! Well, when i say 'you' I certainly mean 'me'. Only yesterday, a friend called over and in a brief part of our conversation (on where time goes!) I mentioned that I had very little self to speak of when I had thought about it! A weird statement but I tried to explain that I felt I had always been rather a blank piece of paper - or maybe blotting paper would have been more apt a description? I have not known a lot of stuff and life just slowly 'writes on the blank piece of paper'. You'd think then that the paper would be full but actually what tends to happen for me is that the next day it is quite a plain piece of paper again! It is a deliberate act - call it curiosity or a real annoyance that I don't want any tying of myself to any mast! I don't wish to be tainted (not quite the right word - perhaps that should be over-influenced) with a fixed position. Fixed life positions are not helpful in my understanding (over the years). The world doesn't really care and has ways to upset the apple cart. Therefore, one needs to be nimble as possible. I think I have been drawn to Sartre's existentialist world (Nausea is one of my favourite books - world changing because it speaks of the sheer 'thingyness' of life but also hints at what one might do as well).

So, I tend to observe and absorb and process. But, like so many posters on this forum I don't then really have a strongly held point of view - on much at all! It has worried me but also it helps me being freer (the double edged sword again!). It's why sometimes it's only over the length of a post that I will work out, through the writing, what I actually think. It's why I posted that I may be rather dim (whatever my IQ scores say). My ability to simply logically lay out sides of an argument is weak. That's because I hold different views up in the air often at the same time and I suspend belief / suspend decision a lot of the time. I often end up with loads of patterns (best way of describing it) which takes me a while to work out. My values are still there (about unfairness, kindness, loyalty, friendship, equality etc etc) but I tend not to dislike anybody! It is very strange. I dislike certain things people say and the ways some people act but I still think I could find things I liked too if I was ever in the position to be alongside them.

Anyway, I'm veering towards a stream of consciousness essay again in responding to your sentence about willingness to learn¬†ūüėÖ¬†so don't wish to be a bore. Being alive and working out who one¬†is, how to be happy etc is a bloomin' battle (using one of Raymond Briggs' terms). Any help that teachers, lecturers, mentors, good supervisors etc can give in helping us all, especially when we are young, to conjure with these ideas would be enormously helpful. I think I've just had to work it all out myself but so wish I hadn't felt as stupid - or rather 'at sea' with not knowing HOW to try and look at the world when growing up. I'm an (older) man now but really, I'm probably still the little boy who wonders about things. The biggest question of all, as one ages, is knowing what bloody use one is to anyone else! And that's my current predicament, finding a purpose after my active fathering and careers have ended. I think I might speak for many others?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sonyc said:

I signed in just a moment and saw your reply H. So, I wanted to applaud your piece. I think you've touched on such an important thing - that the journey, the process of finding out something is a joy and an interest in itself. That you can have this curiosity I believe, will serve you well enough. I ought to make some (quite) personal references here and say that for me being curious does have a double-edged side to it. That's because you so often question yourself too! Well, when i say 'you' I certainly mean 'me'. Only yesterday, a friend called over and in a brief part of our conversation (on where time goes!) I mentioned that I had very little self to speak of when I had thought about it! A weird statement but I tried to explain that I felt I had always been rather a blank piece of paper - or maybe blotting paper would have been more apt a description? I have not known a lot of stuff and life just slowly 'writes on the blank piece of paper'. You'd think then that the paper would be full but actually what tends to happen for me is that the next day it is quite a plain piece of paper again! It is a deliberate act - call it curiosity or a real annoyance that I don't want any tying of myself to any mast! I don't wish to be tainted (not quite the right word - perhaps that should be over-influenced) with a fixed position. Fixed life positions are not helpful in my understanding (over the years). The world doesn't really care and has ways to upset the apple cart. Therefore, one needs to be nimble as possible. I think I have been drawn to Sartre's existentialist world (Nausea is one of my favourite books - world changing because it speaks of the sheer 'thingyness' of life but also hints at what one might do as well).

So, I tend to observe and absorb and process. But, like so many posters on this forum I don't then really have a strongly held point of view - on much at all! It has worried me but also it helps me being freer (the double edged sword again!). It's why sometimes it's only over the length of a post that I will work out, through the writing, what I actually think. It's why I posted that I may be rather dim (whatever my IQ scores say). My ability to simply logically lay out sides of an argument is weak. That's because I hold different views up in the air often at the same time and I suspend belief / suspend decision a lot of the time. I often end up with loads of patterns (best way of describing it) which takes me a while to work out. My values are still there (about unfairness, kindness, loyalty, friendship, equality etc etc) but I tend not to dislike anybody! It is very strange. I dislike certain things people say and the ways some people act but I still think I could find things I liked too if I was ever in the position to be alongside them.

Anyway, I'm veering towards a stream of consciousness essay again in responding to your sentence about willingness to learn¬†ūüėÖ¬†so don't wish to be a bore. Being alive and working out who one¬†is, how to be happy etc is a bloomin' battle (using one of Raymond Briggs' terms). Any help that teachers, lecturers, mentors, good supervisors etc can give in helping us all, especially when we are young, to conjure with these ideas would be enormously helpful. I think I've just had to work it all out myself but so wish I hadn't felt as stupid - or rather 'at sea' with not knowing HOW to try and look at the world when growing up. I'm an (older) man now but really, I'm probably still the little boy who wonders about things. The biggest question of all, as one ages, is knowing what bloody use one is to anyone else! And that's my current predicament, finding a purpose after my active fathering and careers have ended. I think I might speak for many others?

Thanks for that very personal and eloquent reply Sonyc. The spirit of Socrates is clearly very strong within you. I think your piece is an excellent illustration of a point I probably could have made clearer in my post, that at its most fundamental level education is a moral endeavour that goes to the very heart of what it is to be human. Yes education deals with knowledge, and yes education encourages the accumulation and refinement of knowledge, such that we are able to measure it in various ways that enables us to distinguish between those who possess it in greater and lesser degrees. However, I get the feeling we have long lost sight of the original motivation that justified education's focus on knowledge, and which lead to our believing that access to education should be a fundamental right of every child.

The very idea of mass education had its roots in the the work of the Enlightenment thinkers I mentioned earlier, it didn't just appear out of the blue. Kant described Enlightenment as "man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity" Hence his claim that the motto of the Enlightenment was "dare to think" (Sapere Aude). In short, each individual could only escape immaturity and become fully what he/she has the potential to become by showing the willingness to think for him/herself. Thus it is of the first importance to note that it is not intellect that Kant makes fundamental to education, but the virtue of courage. The courage to challenge yourself to think independently rather than allow others to determine your views for you. The Enlightenment thinkers saw human dignity as resting fundamentally in developing the potential one has to become a free, autonomous, and independent critical thinker. Thus education is fundamentally a moral endeavour that provides the justification for our focus on knowledge. Genuine cleverness regarding knowledge will only ever belong to a very few, but for the rest of us it remains fundamentally true that our sense of self worth and dignity, our opportunity to realise our true potential, will be inextricably tied to that moral project of becoming an independent thinker capable of critically thinking through our own beliefs as well as the beliefs of others. 


It is a sad indictment of our current educational system that so many children become disengaged from the educational process because they don't feel they are included in a model which depicts educational success as identical with the demonstration of high-level knowledge acquisition. No wonder many of them look to odious figures like Andrew Tate who offer them a alternative vision of success that they feel is obtainable.  What we need is a reinvigoration of that original Enlightenment ideal that intimately ties education to each child's very personal project of developing their sense of self-worth and respect through becoming increasingly capable of thinking for themself to the maximum of their potential whatever that turns out to be. In a results/league table driven educational system I fear the chances of that happening are sadly remote. All I can say is that when I have engaged children with that vision on school visits, the excitement they show for it is clear. When each child is valued insofar as they have genuinely engaged in the process of realising their potential for independent thought, rather than excluded on grounds of deficit in knowledge attainment, then we increase the chances that they feel included in a common project rather than alienated by a system that labels them a failure.

(The hideousness of the divisions fostered by the Brexit debate seem to me to be very much a reflection of the sort of divisions that are cemented in the school experience of those involved. So those whose educational achievements were lower were bombarded with propaganda from the leave wing that their status in society was caused by the "elites" for whom remaining in the EU served their desire to maintain the status quo by exploiting a vast stream of immigrant labour. Those whose educational achievements were higher were encouraged into a very complacent view that they could ignore the dissatisfactions of those "not as bright" as themselves, that "good sense" would prevail. I'm not suggesting there are not matters of fact to be determined here, but noting that the divisive tenor of the public debate was very much a reflection of the divisions cemented in an educational system that condemns a very large proportion of the population to be losers rather than winners from their school experience.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

The writer knew full well what was on the t shirt.  Its not ignorance on their part.   Manipualtion maybe, but not Ignorance 

I dont suppose 'Man wears t shirt with chess notation' as a headline would have had you posting and inviting everyone to click...

 

 

I'll keep with ignorant 

If the writer knew full well what was on the t-shirt (no certainty of that), then in my view its being discorteous to the reader, ie. ignorant 

In this article in the Daily Express about a volcano in Iceland, the writer refers to the Icelandic prime minister, Katrín Jakobsdóttir, as a man, which she certainly isn't!

I'm tempted to stop reading much of the current UK media due to its low standards; this would be a shame as I like to read a variety of sources for balance 

EDIT - I'd like to think the average headline writer could come up with something a little more interesting than "man wears t-shirt with chess notation" without having to resort using terms that have no relation to the subject 

Edited by How I Wrote Elastic Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of equations......Unluckily, my local has been showing the 1p5wich game on one screen: what the hell is that all about on their shirts?

The screen next to it was showing Life of Brian, so all is well ūüôā

I am ignorant of most things 1p5wich these days ūüėÄ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

I'll keep with ignorant 

If the writer knew full well what was on the t-shirt (no certainty of that), then in my view its being discorteous to the reader,

EDIT - I'd like to think the average headline writer could come up with something a little more interesting than "man wears t-shirt with chess notation" without having to resort using terms that have no relation to the subject 

The article specifically said it was chess notation for the Queen's Gambit. It wasn't such a long article so the headline writer would have read it all. They could have written a more accurate headline but describing something as an equation suggests a bit of a challenge and will, i am sure, generate a bit of interest.  

I stand to be corrected but my understanding is that the Daily Mail is one of  the most viewed media websites in the world.  A lot of that is a genius level ability to write headlines that invite clicks and knowing all the tricks  that help to do this.

Call it misleading, call it cynical, call it manipulative,  but dont mistake it for stupidity.

 

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, horsefly said:

It's precisely why Socrates distinguished knowledge (of) from wisdom (about). In Plato's Apology Socrates explains to a court why he encouraged young people to think for themselves rather than simply accept the professed wisdom of those who claimed to have superior knowledge, such as Athenian politicians. He explains that his reputation for being the wisest man in Athens rested on one piece of knowledge alone; that he knows he doesn't know anything. Wisdom, he says, consists in recognition of one's own ignorance. If one recognises that fundamental truth one will always need to keep an open mind and engage in critical enquiry every day of one's life. Socrates, of course, knew many things (that he was human, an Athenian, a man etc, etc) but recognised that wisdom consisted in being prepared to question the significance or meaning of those pieces of knowledge. His role, he thought, was not to tell the youth of Athens what to think, but to act like a midwife and help them give birth to their own understanding. Needless to say the authorities found him guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens and put him to death.

Several centuries later the greatest philosopher of the modern era, Immanuel Kant, proclaimed that the most profound intellectual and social change in the history of Western culture, the Enlightenment, was best best summed up by the motto "Sapere Aude" (variously translated as "dare to think", "dare to be wise", "have the courage to think for yourself"). So, one of the most knowledgeable men in the world at that time described Enlightenment not as the accumulation of facts, but the development of the ability and will to think for oneself.

When I was lecturing I used to do outreach in schools to encourage children from less advantaged backgrounds to consider continuing into further education. I would begin with the simple question regarding what the thought was the point of education. Of course they responded with the expected replies that it was about "learning stuff/facts", about "getting a good job" etc. Essentially, a standard (not wrong) means/end rationality for enduring the process of education. However, the minute we began to discuss the thoughts of Socrates, Kant, Descartes etc about education being more fundamentally concerned with their own personal development, about becoming an individual able to think for themself, there would typically be a quite remarkable transformation in the class dynamic and engagement. Learning stuff then becomes not just a boring necessity to pass exams, but a means by which each individual develops their ability to think for themself, a source of self-respect and sense of transformative personal power. Feedback from the children and teachers from these sessions remain a source of pride (and I really don't care who wants to accuse me of egotistical self-satisfaction). Cleverness will vary, but all possess the power to think for themselves and it should be the primary function of an education system to enable each individual to develop that ability to fulness of their potential. 

Perhaps the fundamental point I'm driving at here is that developing the willingness to learn is as important (if not more important) as developing cleverness (be that measured by IQ or otherwise). I think it a major failing of our modern education system that children do not have the will to learn placed at the centre of their engagement with the knowledge they are taught. An education system that does not engage the will of all the students in a common project of personal self-development is an education system that ensures a divide between those who are able to display their cleverness from those who feel alienated by their "failure" to be clever. Perhaps we shouldn't then be surprised that we end up with the sort of divisive and entrenched disagreement evidenced by the Brexit vote and its aftermath.

 

A short, terse summary in the school magazine for former pupils was as follows: 

"You don't go to school to learn maths, algebra, physics, etc. You go to school to learn how to learn. Master that, and you can teach yourself almost anything".

And if there is a fundamental problem in our education system, it's micromanagement to the n-th degree such that pupils are coached to pass exams and not to engage in depth with the topic matter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/01/2023 at 20:57, TheGunnShow said:

A short, terse summary in the school magazine for former pupils was as follows: 

"You don't go to school to learn maths, algebra, physics, etc. You go to school to learn how to learn. Master that, and you can teach yourself almost anything".

And if there is a fundamental problem in our education system, it's micromanagement to the n-th degree such that pupils are coached to pass exams and not to engage in depth with the topic matter.

Yes, combined with the obsession that you see from Governments (particularly Tory) and parents that the only point of study is to get skills to get a job that pays well. The insistence that all arts and humanities degrees are actually pointless because you're not qualified for anything at the end of them is poisonous. Learning for the sake of learning should be encouraged, not looked down on, however the nature of our society means it is an option only for those whose parents have the means to do it.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes, combined with the obsession that you see from Governments (particularly Tory) and parents that the only point of study is to get skills to get a job that pays well. The insistence that all arts and humanities degrees are actually pointless because you're not qualified for anything at the end of them is poisonous. Learning for the sake of learning should be encouraged, not looked down on, however the nature of our society means it is an option only for those whose parents have the means to do it.  

I can see a further increase in mental health issues as a result. This is what happens when perpetually stressed people are chivvied into a field they chose for earning capacity instead of following what they genuinely enjoy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes, combined with the obsession that you see from Governments (particularly Tory) and parents that the only point of study is to get skills to get a job that pays well. The insistence that all arts and humanities degrees are actually pointless because you're not qualified for anything at the end of them is poisonous. Learning for the sake of learning should be encouraged, not looked down on, however the nature of our society means it is an option only for those whose parents have the means to do it.  

Absolutely! The fundamental point of education is to give every child the maximum opportunity to develop into an autonomous individual capable of thinking and acting for themselves in all aspects of their life and participation in society. The arts and humanities are indispensable in creating articulate individuals capable of the subtlety and complexity of thought required to formulate their vision of the world and their constructive participation in public life. Be it study of the works of Shakespeare and Dickens, the historical accounts of suffragettes or slavery, etc, etc, children develop both the conceptual framework and linguistic abilities to situate themselves as genuinely autonomous participants in our common world of action. Of course this will help them find a place in the world of work, but schools should never be seen as factories purely producing fodder for employment. Schools create citizens, and at their best citizens participate in every aspect of common life that gives it meaning and purpose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I can see a further increase in mental health issues as a result. This is what happens when perpetually stressed people are chivvied into a field they chose for earning capacity instead of following what they genuinely enjoy.

I'm a realist in that I know the majority of people likely won't end up in a job they are desperately passionate about- there aren't enough of those to go round.

However reducing every decision a person makes in their teens/early 20's into being entirely about their future economic output, the more you'll create an unhappy and uninspired populace.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, horsefly said:

Absolutely! The fundamental point of education is to give every child the maximum opportunity to develop into an autonomous individual capable of thinking and acting for themselves in all aspects of their life and participation in society. The arts and humanities are indispensable in creating articulate individuals capable of the subtlety and complexity of thought required to formulate their vision of the world and their constructive participation in public life. Be it study of the works of Shakespeare and Dickens, the historical accounts of suffragettes or slavery, etc, etc, children develop both the conceptual framework and linguistic abilities to situate themselves as genuinely autonomous participants in our common world of action. Of course this will help them find a place in the world of work, but schools should never be seen as factories purely producing fodder for employment. Schools create citizens, and at their best citizens participate in every aspect of common life that gives it meaning and purpose.

Totally agree. My late father was a headteacher and hugely passionate about this but was getting steadily ground down by the amount of box ticking and paperwork he was having to do in order to make sure the school stayed where it needed to be in the league tables or the eyes of Ofstead. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm a realist in that I know the majority of people likely won't end up in a job they are desperately passionate about- there aren't enough of those to go round.

However reducing every decision a person makes in their teens/early 20's into being entirely about their future economic output, the more you'll create an unhappy and uninspired populace.  

Yep, I'm one of the lucky ones - not to mention I work in a field where I got my Masters in to boot. Granted, it could pay more, but I never wake up in the morning thinking "urgh, do I have to?" and more "I just do not want to retire".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In France, a chief difference with education is that it does stay much broader for much longer, which it probably should do in the UK as well. On the flip side, once you've specialised, you're expected to continue in that field; moving into another field is not an option. This is a major contrast to the Anglosphere where working in unrelated fields to what you studied is probably more the norm than the exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think though there is also a cultural issue at play in that, over time, it feels like parents seem to value education less and less and don't encourage their children to learn as much as they should or respect the people teaching them.

My Dad generally encountered two styles of this.

1- parents who seemed to think their child was an ever so special delicate flower who should never be told no 

2- parents who thought 'book learning' was for nerds and that school was pointless.

The common issue though was both types of parents undermined the authority of teachers in their own classrooms and would do nothing to challenge their children's behaviour or to work with the teachers to create an environment where learning was cherished. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...