Deus Ex Machina

Posts: 3,201

January 31 What struck you about it mate?

The most interesting statement in there was to question how and why the likes of Osbourne and Gove are in the positions they are without a single relevant qualification.

Also, I know quite few people that don't feel qualified or competent in their positions but their qualifications state that they are. That's just wrong.

Deus Ex Machina

Posts: 3,201

January 31 I've not looked into them too deeply as I've not had a reason, but from what I've heard so far, they sound more structured, focused and relevant to what the country needs.

What's wrong with them?

Deus Ex Machina

Posts: 3,201

January 31 I have to agree with sidelining the arts tbqh mate. Imo, creativity isn't taught, it's inherent. All the arts in schools do is provide an outlet for that creativity, an unnecessary and expensive outlet that should be indulged elsewhere.

If it were up to me I'd shorten the school day significantly and focus exclusively on math, the sciences and English. Everything else would be the responsibility of parents to provide. Maybe turn the current trend for free schools into a provision for the subjects not covered and parents can choose which one provides the education their child needs for their personal interpretation of a rounded education.

Deus Ex Machina

Posts: 3,201

January 31 Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this country been one of the most creative for far longer than the current form of education has been in use? Like I said, creativity is inherent. Kids in one of the poorest African countries (i forget which) were given a batch of the cheap Android Akash tablets by the founder of the company. Within 3 months, with zero technological experience, they'd taught themselves to write in the necessary programming language to reprogram and better it. These kids aren't taught much of anything, never mind the arts.

There are very few subjects that need to be taught universally and to a standard, the arts are not one of them imo.

Deus Ex Machina

Posts: 3,201

January 31

If conceded, wha' does this prove? Yer surely no' jumpin' to
the conclusion tha' therefore creativity (an' its nurture) is no' enhance by
education are yer?

(1)What I’m saying is that we’ve had no problem producing
creative individuals for hundreds of years, without the need for an educational
focus on the subject.

 

I think some individuals are inherently more creative than
others (like some individuals are inherently better a' maths than others), does
this mean i' can't be fostered a' all like? You usin' this African-tablet
example as a universal refutation of the idea tha' creativity can't be enhanced
in individuals?

(2) Those who are naturally creative will find ways to
express that creativity, within a society that provides the means. It’s unnecessary
for a country such as ours, with many out of school opportunities for
creativity, to focus our educational efforts in that direction. Yes, creativity
can be enhanced, but why enhance it in individuals to which it does not come naturally?
Of what use to society would it be? Do we need the Sky Sports News rumour
mongers to be a little more creative? Flippant I know, but you get my point, I hope.

 

Quite apart from the notion of "creativity" (which
I admit the article I sent yer focuses on), do you no' think an arts education
is of value in and of itself? Don't you think that philosophy (my choice of
degree, like) 'as value? Are you strictly utilitarian?

(3) I find very little value in the vast majority of
artistic subjects, technical subjects like computing & design should be
folded into math. As for Philosophy, whilst it’s important to have an understanding
of the subject, it’s not important to the future of the country as an entity.
If you want your children to ask the big questions, have a discussion with
them. If you want them to have a qualification in the subject, teach them
yourself and pay for their degree yourself.

I’m not strictly utilitarian but in schools, there should be
a focus on subjects that children will actually need the moment they leave
education, imo. You have an entire lifetime to learn the rest, if you’re so
inclined.

OGV

Posts: 909

January 31 Out of interest... deus... would you consider yourself creative?

OGV

Posts: 909

January 31 I studied maths, physics and chemistry at a-level followed by a degree in law. I think I would do well following your proposals.

OGV

Posts: 909

January 31

IdiAminDaDa said:

null

-----------------

And people can discover things about themselves that perhaps they wouldn't otherwise...if that leads to meaningful future employment then it ought to be encouraged... I don't think its a case of reducing subjects... I think we should be in secondary education for longer... 14 to choose gcse's...16 to choose a-levels and 18 to chose degrees is far too young in my opinion... May have changed but certainly when I was younger the Germans studied all subjects up to the age of 18...

Deus Ex Machina

Posts: 3,201

January 31

IdiAminDaDa said:

null

-----------------

No problem in producing creative individuals? We're talkin'
abar exceptional individuals aren't we? Almost by definition, then, they're
rare, right? There is no educational focus on creativity as a subject, like. If
the production of such individuals could be increased, isn't tha' a good thing
like?

(1) At no point did I say exceptional and I don’t consider
them to be so rare as to be defined that way. There have been and are plenty of
creative people, more than enough for us to have reached the point we’re at now
without issue. If we have enough then by definition, they aren’t rare.

Even if in your world it's unnecessary (and this must be an
ideologically-laden premise), why shouldn't all individuals be provided with
skills to appreciate the world more fully? Must everything in compulsory
education be geared towards the wheels of industry? Smacks of philistinism
mate, no offence like.

(2) No offence taken. Why should the obligation be on
society as a whole to provide every individual with an education in what is
essentially a nonessential subject? Compulsory education should be in subjects
that children will need, not what they may find useful somewhere down the line.

You find little value in the vast majority of arts subjects,
really? If yer trace the 'istory of philosophy, yer'd realise tha' its branches
- such as logic, metaphysics (which, incidentally, is so-called because it was
deemed to be written after Aristotle's physics) - have had a profound influence
on scientific thought an' discovery, like; indeed, i' was common to call
scientists natural philosophers for centuries - even Newton's magnum opus is
called the mathematical principles of natural philosophy. Imo mate, it's
perspectives like yours tha' the tories love like, no offence.

(3) How much more is there left to learn, with regard to
philosophy, NOW? You’re obviously passionate about it, I’m not. Like a lot of
people, I enjoy a good philosophical discussion, I needed no education in the
subject to enjoy it, but it’s still of no use to me other than conversational.
Philosophy is taught in English anyway, it’s not like it would or could
disappear, those who are passionate about it, like yourself, can pay for
further education.

The Tories may love my perspective but it wasn’t born of
Tory doctrine.

OGV

Posts: 909

January 31

Deus Ex Machina said:

null

-----------------

I'm talking about discovering things that lead to meaningful employment mate, not how to smoke c.ock and do drugs... I'm not that liberal!