Re: Home Schooling
I'm not sure about that. Would you say the philosophy of Marx holds the same level of truth as the philosophy of Kant? This is the type of question Philosophers themselves bicker over. Past that, there are plenty of instances when societies educated in Philosophy have created more problems than they've solved. Thiestic philosophy held back society for countless centuries. More recently, Physicists had to deal with criticism from Philosophers who believed a vacuum was a philosophical impossibility, and that only the existence of the hypothetical element ether could explain various things. I believe we have our own Rene Descartes to blame for that collossal screw-up.
Your imagination, as you've already admitted, is not a sound basis for argument.
Right. It's pretty much identical to public school in this regard. We would hope that parents would have the best interest of their children in mind, although this is no guarentee, nor would it guarentee a decent education. We might also hope that children's natural curiosity would compensate for any lack of energy on the part of the parent.
The point is though, outside of all this imaginative speculation of ours, that no one really knows what they're doing in terms of teaching, so there's really no incentive to dissallow home schooling. There is the slightest bit of incentive to dissallow public schooling, simply because it costs money, but it also has measurable, although likely somewhat randomly generated benefits, so the money is probably worth it. That doesn't mean there aren't ways to improve on the system, however.
Tests generally teach how to test. A proper education teaches how to think. While in the later case the one might include the other, learning how to test generally doesn't include learning how to think.
Incidentally, some of the thickest people I've met have been Ivy-Leagers (not to say that most ivy-leagers that I've met have seemed unintelligent.)
There a plenty of low-standard or open-admission colleges, they probably educate just as well even if they do have a lower population of people with an arbitrary number attached to their name, and studies have shown that, at least for undergraduate degrees, there is no real difference in income earned over a lifetime between someone with an undergraduate degree from a state college and someone with an undergrad degree from a private college.
Basically, I don't understand what possible standing objection there could be against any form of diversity in education.
I'm not sure about that. Would you say the philosophy of Marx holds the same level of truth as the philosophy of Kant? This is the type of question Philosophers themselves bicker over. Past that, there are plenty of instances when societies educated in Philosophy have created more problems than they've solved. Thiestic philosophy held back society for countless centuries. More recently, Physicists had to deal with criticism from Philosophers who believed a vacuum was a philosophical impossibility, and that only the existence of the hypothetical element ether could explain various things. I believe we have our own Rene Descartes to blame for that collossal screw-up.
Your imagination, as you've already admitted, is not a sound basis for argument.
the biggest pitfall to homeschooling is that there is -absolutely- no oversight on parents to ensure they are doing a good job.
The point is though, outside of all this imaginative speculation of ours, that no one really knows what they're doing in terms of teaching, so there's really no incentive to dissallow home schooling. There is the slightest bit of incentive to dissallow public schooling, simply because it costs money, but it also has measurable, although likely somewhat randomly generated benefits, so the money is probably worth it. That doesn't mean there aren't ways to improve on the system, however.
You won't necessarily know the parent screwed up until the kid wants to go to college and completely bombs the SATs. At least in schools you theoretically have the benefit of testing throughout, though the efficacy of most school testing in north america is pretty dubious as well.
Incidentally, some of the thickest people I've met have been Ivy-Leagers (not to say that most ivy-leagers that I've met have seemed unintelligent.)
There a plenty of low-standard or open-admission colleges, they probably educate just as well even if they do have a lower population of people with an arbitrary number attached to their name, and studies have shown that, at least for undergraduate degrees, there is no real difference in income earned over a lifetime between someone with an undergraduate degree from a state college and someone with an undergrad degree from a private college.
Basically, I don't understand what possible standing objection there could be against any form of diversity in education.
[/url]
Comment