Education!
•
19 Jul 2007, 11:47
•
Journals
Exams are nothing but small pieces of paper, but they do decide, more than anything else we encounter, our future academic life. Academic life, that is, not career or life in general, simply our future in the world of education; schools seem intent in drilling into students a false sense of reverance for those small slips of paper: throughout my schoool career, it was forced into my mind that I must succeed in exams, else I would presumably end up homeless and forced in to walking the streets selling sexual favors to the teachers who once held in their hands my bright future, but who now hold things that do not bear mentioning. Of course, this is a fallacy; throughout history there have been many who have succeeded without a fomal education, and with the advent of the internet there is an even greater opportunity for self learning - For those who wish to find it, knowledge exists, and this is a simple fact. Most students, however, do not wish to learn, they wish to earn, and it is to this which the schools try their hardest to appeal; they care not whether the student wishes to learn, the quest for knowledge is not one that interests them, an odd proposition when you consider the purpose of a school. Nevetheless, what they wish to instill upon students is that money is success, and to aquire money one must aquire an education. Most students will devour this message with out so much as chewing first, they will dive head into the capatilist dream, seeking out not books or theories, but money; they wish nothing more than to own a big house, fast car and to behold as many loose women as their heart desires - The same is true for women, although, foregoing any lesbian leanings, one would assume they would wish to aquire loose men.
I have wondered why schools teach this message, when they more valuable one seems so much more productive: namely, that knowledge, education, should be sought after not for material gain, but for its own sake - For the betterment of humanity, the individual, to know that your life was worth more than a value in a banks computer system. One could blame the usual scapegoats, the media, society, and it is true that they play a part, but they do not demand that schools teach this message, they do not force them to expound it in such a fashion, they do not legislate that children should be tought to learn for a career, not just to learn. One might imagine a society where people do learn for learnings sake, as one filled with philosophers and scientists, who do nothing but develop theories which, although exciting their own personal sensibilities, do not produce anything of worth for soceity as whole. Of course there will be those who do nothing but persure trivial knowledge, but they would be the minority - People do not seek to minimise the impact of their life on the world, but to maximise it, and developing the worlds first boot come sonograph would do nothing to maximise ones legacy.
The point which I so inadequately expressed in my earlier post, is that schools do not teach students to value knowledge, but merely propogate the idea that money is the purpose of existence: I find this deplaurable, disgusting and in some ways depressing, children are the future, after all.
We choose our degrees knowing a number of factors: our own tastes, career posibilities, cost; we weigh up the parameters and, eventually, pick something which provides the best balance. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, however, I can't help but think that we should be choosing a degree based solely on what we wish to persue, what we think we can succeed at, what we enjoy, without consideration for monetary gain. Of course, most do not wish to be poor, and so any ideas regarding how to achieve this, and as a result change the message schools are sending to children, is almost doomed to fail: but it is worth pondering.
Moving on to a slightly more serious issue: those who do degrees because they feel they must, not out of want. Such people have been pressured, by the education system, parents, the media; numerous sources conspire to tell them that without a degree they will be subhuman, they will be bums. These people take a degree without want of education, they learn to pass exams, not to further their minds; these people clog up the education system, they devalue degrees, they force universities to create joke courses that exist for the specific purpose of allowing someone to put "Graduate" on their CV. It looks as though I forgot my politically correct hat today, but not everyone should be doing a degree. People are not born equal, some people simply do not have the faculties to obtain a meaningful degree; they are not, however, contrary to what the schools would have you believe, useless, in fact, I would go as far as to say that they are the most useful and deserving people in soceity. These people have skills which can not be developed academically, they have talents which need to be nurtured in a different enviroment - Yet they are force fed the idea, from an early age, that a degree is needed for success.
Rant over, think about it.
I have wondered why schools teach this message, when they more valuable one seems so much more productive: namely, that knowledge, education, should be sought after not for material gain, but for its own sake - For the betterment of humanity, the individual, to know that your life was worth more than a value in a banks computer system. One could blame the usual scapegoats, the media, society, and it is true that they play a part, but they do not demand that schools teach this message, they do not force them to expound it in such a fashion, they do not legislate that children should be tought to learn for a career, not just to learn. One might imagine a society where people do learn for learnings sake, as one filled with philosophers and scientists, who do nothing but develop theories which, although exciting their own personal sensibilities, do not produce anything of worth for soceity as whole. Of course there will be those who do nothing but persure trivial knowledge, but they would be the minority - People do not seek to minimise the impact of their life on the world, but to maximise it, and developing the worlds first boot come sonograph would do nothing to maximise ones legacy.
The point which I so inadequately expressed in my earlier post, is that schools do not teach students to value knowledge, but merely propogate the idea that money is the purpose of existence: I find this deplaurable, disgusting and in some ways depressing, children are the future, after all.
We choose our degrees knowing a number of factors: our own tastes, career posibilities, cost; we weigh up the parameters and, eventually, pick something which provides the best balance. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, however, I can't help but think that we should be choosing a degree based solely on what we wish to persue, what we think we can succeed at, what we enjoy, without consideration for monetary gain. Of course, most do not wish to be poor, and so any ideas regarding how to achieve this, and as a result change the message schools are sending to children, is almost doomed to fail: but it is worth pondering.
Moving on to a slightly more serious issue: those who do degrees because they feel they must, not out of want. Such people have been pressured, by the education system, parents, the media; numerous sources conspire to tell them that without a degree they will be subhuman, they will be bums. These people take a degree without want of education, they learn to pass exams, not to further their minds; these people clog up the education system, they devalue degrees, they force universities to create joke courses that exist for the specific purpose of allowing someone to put "Graduate" on their CV. It looks as though I forgot my politically correct hat today, but not everyone should be doing a degree. People are not born equal, some people simply do not have the faculties to obtain a meaningful degree; they are not, however, contrary to what the schools would have you believe, useless, in fact, I would go as far as to say that they are the most useful and deserving people in soceity. These people have skills which can not be developed academically, they have talents which need to be nurtured in a different enviroment - Yet they are force fed the idea, from an early age, that a degree is needed for success.
Rant over, think about it.
People who obviously don't have the academic skills to get a degree, or a meaningful one, should not be told that you need one to be payed well.
Edit: Edit abuse!
why are there that much that long journals today? goan :(
e: where you copied from?
hi2u2 iTune
g vs p
HB ZOE
CF is dead
torrent help
Recent Comments:
omfg get life
EXPERIENCE?????!?!
tea & coffee
Wassup, nigga.[/center]
Like you?
I wrote it, I didn't copy it.
who the fuck are you to be an expert in education Oo
LOL the first who read the text :D..d:D:.d.D::DDD
ahaha I hope you haven't studied economics :P
So hang on, you're saying, to cancel out the rich people's wealth, you make things cheaper? OH dear
Ditching national labour for cheaper labour overseas would obviously cause unemployment (oh yay, higher taxes, that'll make things cheaper), how are people who you're trying to reduce the benefits of wealth for gonna enjoy these new super cheap goods without any money?
Lets forget about this unemployment though for a while. Assume everyone can now afford all these cheap-to-produce goods, demand is sky high, do you think the firms will just cut prices because costs have been reduced - everyone will be happy!!? No, they'll milk as much profit out of the goods as demand will allow (as you say), making the big companies wealthier, probably increasing income differentials bewteen the rich and poor even more, fantastic.
My point was that if you wanted to eradicate the benefits of wealth, you would make goods so cheap so that a man on a £100 a week wage could afford everything his heart desired, even everything the heart of a wealthy man would desire - You get the point yes?
You misinterpreted the idea of cancelling out wealth with regards to product price; the idea was not to cancel out wealth per se, a resdistribution would not occur within that system, but the benefit of wealth would no longer be apparent. A system based on trade and goods for example, would have no need for money; or the system based upon cheaper goods, with our economy moving towards the service sector - Ensure everyone is payed enough that they can afford a modicum of luxuries.
Anyway, you can't satisy all, and like you say, big business would likely never submit to lowering their price to anything but the maximum a consumer would pay: but then, that's the beauty of socialism isn't it?
Students should be taught, and given the option and funding to, pursue their own ends, to learn for learnings sake.
I think that it's more important to be happy than to have much money. It's nice if you can buy anything you want, but it's not required to become really happy in life.
In Germany there's something wrong: I have to study, because with my mediocre (grammar school) leaving certificate, no one offers me an apprenticeship. Had I attended secondary school and left with a good certificate I'd have much less problems finding an apprenticeship... Besides that, I love being a student ;)
btw: its probably only in uk/usa students have large debts, here u only pay 500 euro a year so no one has debts when they are graduated
btw: there is a connection between your degree and your income, it's statistically proven that when u got a uni degree u earn xxx more than som1 who doesn't have a degree alltho not everyone off course but the median person earns actually more.
but indeed everyone wants as much money as they want
The government has no money. All the money comes from working individuals. Every student should pay for his own study. Now the guy picking up the garbage is paying for your education and that's just wrong. It would be even more wrong if you are studying without any economic gain. You make the garbage man pay without him ever getting better from it. Pay everything yourself and I don't care what you do. Do it from someone else his money and I do. Then you have to study for economic gain.
I think we should all just study for whatever's most profitable. In thirty years, when all progress has stopped and we have 30 million unemployed business school graduates, atleast we can look back and say "The garbage man got his share!"
Take my profession, I.T. My previous boss in my old company did not have a degree yet he was head of IT however he had done various technical qualifications in the field, MCSE / CCNA / ITIL / MCT but he never went to University, Still he is sitting pretty on 70k a year. I would say thats reasonably wealthy.
The point is some make a decision not to go to University yet can still go far with their chosen career as long as they are committed. These days a degree (including worthless ones imo) are thrown down peoples throats.
If you want to take a year out then do it for the right reasons (to travel or to work to generate money to make your uni life easier). I mean seriously how hard is it to decide? It should take you 5 mins.
I agree that young people are more or less expected and persuaded (probably quite often against their deepest wishes) to go to university or whatever, but in so doing they also limit their choices. Or rather, their amount of choices have already been limitied by what sock said in the main post.
So....yea, do what you want to do and not what you think others want you to do.
Anyway, I think following your heart is the right way to go, but I also think that's it's the governments duty to ensure that that heart isn't corrupted into following an ideal that doesn't benefit the whole of humanity, or atleast isn't completely selfishly motivated.
It's not the academic environment who is propagating these ideas: go to university, get good marks, get a degree, get a job. It's the whole society. It's because jobs that pay good require good skills and knowledge, and the degree is a way to certify them. It's also a proof that one can do hard work, can organise himself, and everything else one needs in order to successfully complete a degree. There are also jobs that do not need degrees. In order to work in a bar, or sell in a shop, you don't need any degree.
In what I have said above, there is a keyword, and that one is JOB. Companies do need to have a way of choosing their employees, and a university degree seems like the perfect choice: someone else already assessed your candidates, and the result is easily available. If you were to thoroughly test each applicant, you'd waste alot of time.
There are two side questions that arise: Do we really need a job to have money? and Do we really need to have good money to have a good life? The second question is kinda controversial, but the general impression seems to be money is good. The first question however is worth a look. What are the alternatives? I guess the best would be owning a business. It's not about being the best, it's all about getting the best to work for you. This however requires some skills only few people have, and it also takes alot of courage. In the beginning business is all about risk, and people don't like taking risks. Only after you have enough experience you can say it's not that risky anymore.
For more discussion on this final topic, I highly recommend this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_dad_poor_dad . It's accessible and easy to read.
There is no money in the traditional sense, all food and raw materials are processed, and to the workers are handed tokens, a for of money, but not so when you think of what money means in todays world, these tokens are exchanged for luxury goods and services. Each citizen is already provided with the necessities of life, and so has no need to buy them, they are free instead to spend the tokens / money on luxuries, to which they may decide what is best.
Anyway, that's classic socialism, and it's an admirable idea, although I'm not sure how well it would work in reality. You may ask why would anyone then, become a janitor or a sewage worker? Well, they would be paid better in these position, or they would work shorter hours, or they would retire much earlier.
I wasn't disagreeing that jobs require good skills an knowledge, only that such knowledge souldn't be sought after simply to aquire that good job - The student should be taught to learn for learnings sake, not for a career or job.
Knowledge for knowledge's sake? Agreed! But there's a catch. Why learn when you can go play/drink/date/whatever? You have nothing to be responsible for. But when you know you have to learn FOR YOUR OWN LIFE, you do it. Indeed, when you learn becase you WANT to, you learn better. When you do it because you HAVE to, it's not the same thing.
Don't get me wrong. I do my degree because I like it, I want it, and I'm interested in it. Maybe I'm too idealist, but I generally see people doing what degree they want. But there has to be at least some bit of obligativity, otherwise most the world would end up dumm, with only a small elite doing the academic stuff.
Pretty much sums up everything you wrote in one sentence. Typically the problem is the students wanting to go to university (peer pressure and some of the things you mentioned) but not wanting to study traditional subjects in fear of not actually being good enough and possibly failing.
I mean this is quite coincidental but like an hour ago I was in the bank behind this half decent looking girl who was obviously on her lunch break or had just finished (had a co op uniform on), and she was talking to the women behind the counter who obviously she knew. She was talking about she was planning on doing, and talk of university came up, so they were talking about subjects etc and no joke this was the reply she came out with
"I was thinking about history, but there looked like too much writing so I've gone off the idea."
I mean, I really like science and engineering, and that's why I'm doing it... Must everybody like something?
I think this journal is exacly sock's oppinion that too many people doing university are doing it exacly how you have described above (you were talking about jobs, but anyway):
and yet you continue: