One reason core schooling doesn't focus on practical knowledge is that it's almost impossible to determine what's useful knowledge for any one individual, and that knowledge is likely to date very quickly. If schools only focused on what's practical for
each individual rather than imparting core knowledge, then your actual progress (and the progress of society as a whole) to higher topics would in fact be much slower, not faster. Say, 1/20 people are going to be the future leaders of science. How do you determine which students needs to learn higher, abstract maths and science
before you teach them?
if you limit the teaching to "practical knowledge" someone actually has to sit down and predetermine what knowledge you "need" which would be ultimately limiting and guaranteed to be 15-20 years out of date anyway, even with the best intentions, and we also miss out on teaching the fundamentals to those people who are going to excel in each subject area.
If you notice: the courses where they teach "practical everyday knowledge" are in fact for the students they've given up on: the academic dummies who the best they can hope to teach them is how to read a newspaper or write a shopping list and add up the totals. The kids they're teaching the "useless" abstract stuff / shakespeare etc, are actually the talented ones that the future depends on. Because it's that abstract knowledge that all higher levels of learning are built on top of.
Personally, I think a schooling system solely focused on around preparing you with "practical knowledge" would be a terrible idea. For example, you say we shouldn't teach everyone trigonometry unless they need it, for specific personal reasons. But ... would you actually
want to live in a world where only a select few people understood trig and geometry and algebra, or had read
any shakespeare, or knew any physics or chemistry or biology at all? Because almost all subjects aren't "needed" for "practical" reasons by most people. it would be a goddamn disaster if we didn't teach them. I mean, most people aren't scientific geniuses, but because of the phenomena of public schooling they've at least
heard of electrons and neutrons and protons for example. Sure, they're not all science geniuses but having a basic scientific and maths vocabulary, due to schooling, means that people can communicate about these things and be taught the specifics as needed.
BTW:
in the hope that he'll be The Man, instead of working for The Man.
Isn't that buying way too much into this meritocratic just world fallacy?
I don't think you understand how the "just world fallacy" works.
You seem to think that it's applicable here, which it is not.
The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesisThe just-world-fallacy always works
backwards not
forwards, and it is in non-causative and almost always negative, not positive. For example, if someone is struck by lightning, then after the event just-world-fallacy people attribute negative traits to that person, which means he "deserved" to be struck by lightning. That way, the person can discount the possibility that
they could be struck by lightning too: since they by definition lack the negative traits that caused the person to "deserve" the bad luck. Note, that in the fallacy the trait that
caused you to deserve the bad luck is never actually causally connected to the event itself. For example, if someone stood in a field with a metal pole during a storm and got struck by lightning, then the just-world-fallacy
doesn't kick in: that's because the outcome was
predictable, so it's not a scary outcome. If someone was just walking down the street normally and got struck by lightning, then the just-world-fallacy does apply: because the other person also walks down the street, so the possibility of being randomly struck by lightning is
scary, so they rationalize it as "well he morally deserved to be hit by lightning because he's smelly, but it won't happen to me, because I'm not smelly and therefore don't deserve it".
The just-world-fallacy is a reaction against unpredictable events by concocting irrational post-hoc reasoning for why bad things happen. It's got nothing to do with the education question. It kicks in whenever there
isn't a rational explanation, and always used language like "deserved" or "justified".
In this situation, it's not applicable. The parents
want their kids to do better, and that's not a "fallacy", it's a desire. So, they get them extra tutoring, on the grounds that more study = higher grades. Again, a rational assumption. Then, those grades get you into a better school, and going to a better school means you're much more likely to get a better job. None of this is connected to the specific "just world fallacy".
Author
Topic: Things that made you sad today thread. (Read 9786910 times)