Faith Based Social Welfare

[Gil Hamilton]

Marina, you propose an interesting cirriculum, but may I make a few suggestions? I'd push study of language into the elementary school area. Neurologists have shown that that's when the brain hardwires for vocabulary and grammar patterns, and if you establish the basics then, it will be much easier later on to learn foriegn languages. Personally, I'd do like the Europeans and pretty much everyone else but us and have elementary school kids start learning a foriegn language as a mandatory part of the cirriculum. Plus, I wouldn't bother with latin and greek. With proper instruction in English, instruction in Latin and Greek really doesn't add all that much. Languages like Spanish, German, Chinese, and Japanese are far more useful, since there is a high chance that that will help them in their professional lives once they get out.

Secondly, canning art and music is a bad idea. Musical and artistic talent isn't something you just pick up in college as an elective. You've got to build up a foundation early and it needs to be cultivated. This isn't merely talk from someone who considers art and music something to be important, there is serious neurological grounding for this. Like language and mathemathic skill, artistic ability is something that becomes hardwired into you at a young age. Stripping art out of the cirriculum except for strict definitions of "This is art and this isn't. End of story." will effect them for the rest of their lives, because you don't learn art that way. Can you imagine subjecting a class full of ten year olds to an art cirriculum composed of this:

"...This is impressionism. Impressionism was an artistic movement that developed in France in the late 19th century, and is characterized by attempting to capture visual reality by transient use of color and light. This is a painting by Claude Monet called "Le Promenade". This was an early example of impressionist paints...

They wouldn't learn anything about art that way. It would just bore them to tears. Hell, it bored me to tears when I took Art Appreciation in college and I was in to it. No, the way to teach kids about art is to have them do it and learn it themselves. However, there is a way to do it as to give kids the hard skills. Teach kids how to use perspective, composition, and light and shadow, plus teaching them how to use the tools and materials. Not alot of art classes emphasize the hard skills and they are very useful. But you can't teach them about art by way of dry readings and lectures, they have to learn about it by doing it.

Finally, I'd drop the bit at the end about firearms. The point of this is to free people of political agendas, not merely shift what agenda the kids get to your own.

[frigidmagi]

Finally, I'd drop the bit at the end about firearms. The point of this is to free people of political agendas, not merely shift what agenda the kids get to your own.

Learning Gun safety is political thing now? Look Gil most of the anti-gun shit I've ran into is based on ignorence of firearms and proper firearm proceedure. Let the kiddies learn that a pistol is not some fearsome ravening soul destroyer, just a tool of plastic and metal driven by the wielders descision.

[Gil Hamilton]

Learning Gun safety is political thing now? Look Gil most of the anti-gun shit I've ran into is based on ignorence of firearms and proper firearm proceedure. Let the kiddies learn that a pistol is not some fearsome ravening soul destroyer, just a tool of plastic and metal driven by the wielders descision.

It most certainly is a political thing. Look, I agree with you that guns are just tools. I own one, in fact. However, there is no denying that it is a big political deal to make firearms part of a nation wide cirriculum.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

You realize that there are over 260 million Americans right? Yes, they're a large block, but they're not about to swarm us under if we get out shit togather.

If people stop being apathetic and they actually dget their shit together, but it seems like the opposite is happening.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Marina, you propose an interesting cirriculum, but may I make a few suggestions? I'd push study of language into the elementary school area. Neurologists have shown that that's when the brain hardwires for vocabulary and grammar patterns, and if you establish the basics then, it will be much easier later on to learn foriegn languages. Personally, I'd do like the Europeans and pretty much everyone else but us and have elementary school kids start learning a foriegn language as a mandatory part of the cirriculum.

That's reasonable enough and would in fact be preferable.

Plus, I wouldn't bother with latin and greek. With proper instruction in English, instruction in Latin and Greek really doesn't add all that much. Languages like Spanish, German, Chinese, and Japanese are far more useful, since there is a high chance that that will help them in their professional lives once they get out.

No. Latin and Greek are the languages in which all of the foundations of our culture were laid. They are excellent languages for the study of our history, concepts of self, philosophy, and cultural identity. The curtailing of Latin and Greek instruction in recent decades is one of the reasons for our decay as a society and it is absolute must-have component for any proper education system. Need I point out that the practical benefits are more than in just learning the linguistic bases of English? Medicine and Law alike are highly dependent on Latin. I strongly suspect that much of the medical and legal idiocy alike which is accepted by people in our society today could be eliminated if they had a firm grounding in Latin. In particular it might reduce dependence on lawyers since the average person could more easily understand the law.

Secondly, canning art and music is a bad idea. Musical and artistic talent isn't something you just pick up in college as an elective. You've got to build up a foundation early and it needs to be cultivated. This isn't merely talk from someone who considers art and music something to be important, there is serious neurological grounding for this. Like language and mathemathic skill, artistic ability is something that becomes hardwired into you at a young age. Stripping art out of the cirriculum except for strict definitions of "This is art and this isn't. End of story." will effect them for the rest of their lives, because you don't learn art that way. Can you imagine subjecting a class full of ten year olds to an art cirriculum composed of this:

"...This is impressionism. Impressionism was an artistic movement that developed in France in the late 19th century, and is characterized by attempting to capture visual reality by transient use of color and light. This is a painting by Claude Monet called "Le Promenade". This was an early example of impressionist paints...

Then save artistic instruction for later on. At any rate, music and art are not vital to us and in fact just waste time. What is the point of paying a teacher to instruct children in finger-painting?

They wouldn't learn anything about art that way. It would just bore them to tears. Hell, it bored me to tears when I took Art Appreciation in college and I was in to it. No, the way to teach kids about art is to have them do it and learn it themselves. However, there is a way to do it as to give kids the hard skills. Teach kids how to use perspective, composition, and light and shadow, plus teaching them how to use the tools and materials. Not alot of art classes emphasize the hard skills and they are very useful. But you can't teach them about art by way of dry readings and lectures, they have to learn about it by doing it.

A lot of proper music and proper art is based heavily on mathematics, and so teaching someone an extensive base of knowledge in practical geometry is going to set them up as well for an art or music career as any actual classes in those subjects, Gil. Though the curriculum for the moment is sparse at the elementary level--if you think those "hard skills" can be taught to elementary school students than it can probably be sandwiched in, but such classes at the middle school or high school level would just waste time.

Finally, I'd drop the bit at the end about firearms. The point of this is to free people of political agendas, not merely shift what agenda the kids get to your own.

Gun safety is not political, and if it is, it shouldn't be.

[Keevan_Colton]

No. Latin and Greek are the languages in which all of the foundations of our culture were laid. They are excellent languages for the study of our history, concepts of self, philosophy, and cultural identity. The curtailing of Latin and Greek instruction in recent decades is one of the reasons for our decay as a society and it is absolute must-have component for any proper education system. Need I point out that the practical benefits are more than in just learning the linguistic bases of English? Medicine and Law alike are highly dependent on Latin. I strongly suspect that much of the medical and legal idiocy alike which is accepted by people in our society today could be eliminated if they had a firm grounding in Latin. In particular it might reduce dependence on lawyers since the average person could more easily understand the law.

Problem - Lawyers and legalese
Solution - Dont make legalese simpler, make everyone learn legalese.

Then save artistic instruction for later on. At any rate, music and art are not vital to us and in fact just waste time. What is the point of paying a teacher to instruct children in finger-painting?

I love your priorities sometimes.
First you say latin is important due to cultural roots etc, then dismiss art as a waste of time. Congratulations you're a self contradicting idiot.

Gun safety is not political, and if it is, it shouldn't be.

You'll find it's a uniquely US political issue caused by the retards who like to live in the 18th century and worship the constitution and the right to bear arms as holy things.

[frigidmagi]

You'll find it's a uniquely US political issue caused by the retards who like to live in the 18th century and worship the constitution and the right to bear arms as holy things.

And we're talking about a US educational system.

[Keevan_Colton]

You'll find it's a uniquely US political issue caused by the retards who like to live in the 18th century and worship the constitution and the right to bear arms as holy things.

And we're talking about a US educational system.

Did I say you weren't?
I'm saying it's only an issue in the US and it is most definetly a political one.

[frigidmagi]

Due to the idioticy of certain people, just like GM foods are a politcal issue due to idiotcy and nuclear power is an issue due to idioticy.

Sell it somewhere else.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I love your priorities sometimes.
First you say latin is important due to cultural roots etc, then dismiss art as a waste of time. Congratulations you're a self contradicting idiot.

Fuck off. An understanding of the importance of proper art to culture is something that I explicitly said was to be instilled in students. I'm not sorry at all if I think that art is a talent is a not some skill you can turn out on the assembly line, and thus it is irrelevant to teach it. Though I note that all proper art (and music) relies heavily on mathematics, and thus math instruction provides a good grounding in how to produce proper art. At any rate I proved perfectly willing to go beyond that; I added music as a voluntary subject to start with, and at Gil's suggestion proved quite willing to sandwich in some basic art principles at the elementary level.

[Keevan_Colton]

Duchess your ideas are self contradictory. Latin is far more useless in an intelligent world than the simple joy and sense of achivement teaching children to be creative can bring. After all you did say:

At any rate, music and art are not vital to us and in fact just waste time.

Frankly, you're being an idiot for suggesting a solution to a problem of complex legal systems and an excessive reliance on lawyers is to make everyone into a quasi-lawyer in their own right. That's like discovering you've got a burst pipe in the house and rather than fixing it buying fucking wellies to walk about isntead of slippers.

[Illuminatus Primus]

No. Latin and Greek are the languages in which all of the foundations of our culture were laid.

You have failed to propose why sufficient, competent comprehension of the documents regarding those selfsame foundations cannot be divined from translation, but only by original text.

They are excellent languages for the study of our history, concepts of self, philosophy, and cultural identity.

No doubt. Are they sufficiently more excellent than English to justify the time and money dedicated to their mastery? I think not.

The curtailing of Latin and Greek instruction in recent decades is one of the reasons for our decay as a society and it is absolute must-have component for any proper education system.

This is an axiomatic claim.

Need I point out that the practical benefits are more than in just learning the linguistic bases of English?

Which itself is suspect - simple competent English education vis-a-vis etymology, diction, and grammar will suffice for these objectives just fine.

Medicine and Law alike are highly dependent on Latin.

The use of retained jargon and terminology is not sufficient basis to require the universal education in Greek and Latin. As the son of a medical doctor and a student who will be attending classes with an eye toward a double major in chemistry and biology in order to eventually acquire a doctorate in medicine of my own, I can tell you my own experiences with professional medicine have never incidated that Latin is even a minor advantage in Medicine. If one aims to prepare students ahead for Medicine and Law, one would do well to emphasize education in the nature and history of law, particularly the origins of American law, and to include introductory organic chemistry in the science curriculum. Both of which would be much more useful and efficient uses of the time otherwise allocated to education in Greek and Latin.

I strongly suspect that much of the medical and legal idiocy alike which is accepted by people in our society today could be eliminated if they had a firm grounding in Latin.

Being unable to speak on the matters of legal idiocy, as well as being unsure what you mean (though I assume it is frivolous lawsuits and grave abuse of the class-action civil suit), I will address medical stupidity.

Medical stupidity and ignorance in modern American is rooted in a lack of education in basic epistemology, specifically empiricism, causing people to grow accustomed to and accepting of pseudoscience, which includes "quack" medicine.

The precise etymological root of much of medicine's jargon would not alleviate this problem, at least to my perception.

In particular it might reduce dependence on lawyers since the average person could more easily understand the law.

[snip]

Fine arts education, like organized sports, is not a sufficiently pressing need for our society to justify government subidization pre-collegiate level. Both organized sports and fine arts should be encouraged and organized privately, with some government subsidization (assuming the clubs and groups meet certain criteria).

A lot of proper music and proper art is based heavily on mathematics, and so teaching someone an extensive base of knowledge in practical geometry is going to set them up as well for an art or music career as any actual classes in those subjects, Gil. Though the curriculum for the moment is sparse at the elementary level--if you think those "hard skills" can be taught to elementary school students than it can probably be sandwiched in, but such classes at the middle school or high school level would just waste time.

I agree. If you look at it by percentage, it simply is not a pressing need for the majority of the future citizenry; its a frivolous and disproportionate allocation of funds.

Gun safety is not political, and if it is, it shouldn't be.

I find this curious; many have no problem curtailing the right to own things, but passive measures like educating everyone to avoid accident and misunderstanding is met with resistance.

Furthermore, this can obviously be seen as a means of preparing the populace that opts for military enlistment with the most basic skills ahead of time, and producing a body of enlistees all guarenteed to a certain level of competency with firearms. Not to mention it more easily facilitates mobilizing the citizenry should the draft be reactivated in a time of need.

[Gil Hamilton]

That's reasonable enough and would in fact be preferable.

We can agree on that.

No. Latin and Greek are the languages in which all of the foundations of our culture were laid. They are excellent languages for the study of our history, concepts of self, philosophy, and cultural identity. The curtailing of Latin and Greek instruction in recent decades is one of the reasons for our decay as a society and it is absolute must-have component for any proper education system. Need I point out that the practical benefits are more than in just learning the linguistic bases of English? Medicine and Law alike are highly dependent on Latin. I strongly suspect that much of the medical and legal idiocy alike which is accepted by people in our society today could be eliminated if they had a firm grounding in Latin. In particular it might reduce dependence on lawyers since the average person could more easily understand the law.

Actually, you don't need to be fluent in latin and greek at all to understand philosophy, our history, medicine or law. I've yet to encounter a important philosophical text where it was important to read the text in it's original Greek in order to get the underlying concept. Likewise, medicine and law both use alot of Latin and Greek terms, but you don't need to be able to speak Latin to get their concepts, they just become part of the vocabulary. After all, I don't need to speak Latin to know what quid quo pro or ipso facto means in terms of our law, nor need it to know that a bottle nosed dolphin is a tursiops truncatus. Teaching a person Latin won't do a person a bit of good in dealing with the law if they don't already understand the law to begin with.

Then save artistic instruction for later on. At any rate, music and art are not vital to us and in fact just waste time. What is the point of paying a teacher to instruct children in finger-painting?

Tell any artist or musician that it's a waste of time. Do you think that the vast amount of people who play music professionally started in college without any education previously? Maybe you think that all those millions of concept drawings, product designs, and hell, even police sketchers produce themselves? Of course not. Artists and musicians find their starts early in their lives, not in college, and it's very important if we want artists and musicians in our society to keep it in our schools. Considering how much of our industry actually relies on the product of talented artists, I'd say it would be wise to train our children in it.

A lot of proper music and proper art is based heavily on mathematics, and so teaching someone an extensive base of knowledge in practical geometry is going to set them up as well for an art or music career as any actual classes in those subjects, Gil. Though the curriculum for the moment is sparse at the elementary level--if you think those "hard skills" can be taught to elementary school students than it can probably be sandwiched in, but such classes at the middle school or high school level would just waste time.

Only a person who doesn't have a drop of artistic or musical talent would say that you could learn to be a professional artist or musician by exclusively taking courses in geometry without getting instruction in art and music, Marina. I'm starting to think that you honestly have no idea what goes into being a professional artist or musician and because you don't know what you are talking about you make the assumption "How hard could it be?"

Tell you what, Marina, IM Zaia sometime and ask her how long and hard she had to work to be a professional percussionist. You might want to tell her that you also consider it a waste of time that should be eliminated in middle and high school, considering what her job is. I'm sure she would be glad to hear it.

Gun safety is not political, and if it is, it shouldn't be.

It surely is political, if you'd pay attention, and making it a requirement for graduation from high school is doubly so.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Duchess your ideas are self contradictory. Latin is far more useless in an intelligent world than the simple joy and sense of achivement teaching children to be creative can bring. After all you did say:

At any rate, music and art are not vital to us and in fact just waste time.

Look, School is not about "joy" and a "sense of achievement", you stupid fuckwit. People like you are exactly what's wrong with the modern education system. School is about training people to be successful in life. Very, very few people are successful in the arts. Therefore it is a luxury, and it is a waste of time to teach it to them. If they are gifted in that field, they will be able to do it on their own without any help from the school.

I have seen the results of "creative writing" classes, they produce trash authors, absolutely trash, who indulge in formulaic and repetitive constructs in their pathetic efforts to create fiction. I have seen the result of "arts" classes, and frankly the only reason why anything thinks they're valuable is because we're in a day and age where garbage strewn around a galley is called "art".

School should create healthy and inquisitive adults, capable of using their reasoning abilities to get through life, and with a core of knowledge that can prepare them to go directly into a specialization in college which will provide them with a job afterward which can see them through life. If you want your child to become an artist send them to a private school which specializes in art training. The public education system, however, should exist to give children skills which are a benefit to society and to themselves.

Frankly, you're being an idiot for suggesting a solution to a problem of complex legal systems and an excessive reliance on lawyers is to make everyone into a quasi-lawyer in their own right. That's like discovering you've got a burst pipe in the house and rather than fixing it buying fucking wellies to walk about isntead of slippers.

Do you realize how many imbedded interests there are in the legal profession? This may not be the preferred option but it's one which may have a chance to be implemented sometime in this century. Lots of times you have to settle for what's second or third best because the things better than it are simply impossible to implement.

[Keevan_Colton]

You want to teach latin for fucks sake yet decry art as a waste of time.

You want to create useful adults to feed a machinery of commerce. That is all you are concerned with, I've heard you described as an ultra-facist before, but it's things like this that really bring it home.

Why is latin important to creating your happy little workers...or is it just you like latin?...you have your own agenda which often crops up, it's just one that makes no sense.

I ask you now, why teach a dead language over creative arts?

You frankly are one of the most frightening people I have heard when it comes to any kind of social agenda.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You have failed to propose why sufficient, competent comprehension of the documents regarding those selfsame foundations cannot be divined from translation, but only by original text.

No doubt. Are they sufficiently more excellent than English to justify the time and money dedicated to their mastery? I think not.

This is an axiomatic claim.

Which itself is suspect - simple competent English education vis-a-vis etymology, diction, and grammar will suffice for these objectives just fine.

The use of retained jargon and terminology is not sufficient basis to require the universal education in Greek and Latin. As the son of a medical doctor and a student who will be attending classes with an eye toward a double major in chemistry and biology in order to eventually acquire a doctorate in medicine of my own, I can tell you my own experiences with professional medicine have never incidated that Latin is even a minor advantage in Medicine. If one aims to prepare students ahead for Medicine and Law, one would do well to emphasize education in the nature and history of law, particularly the origins of American law, and to include introductory organic chemistry in the science curriculum. Both of which would be much more useful and efficient uses of the time otherwise allocated to education in Greek and Latin.]

Being unable to speak on the matters of legal idiocy, as well as being unsure what you mean (though I assume it is frivolous lawsuits and grave abuse of the class-action civil suit), I will address medical stupidity.

Medical stupidity and ignorance in modern American is rooted in a lack of education in basic epistemology, specifically empiricism, causing people to grow accustomed to and accepting of pseudoscience, which includes "quack" medicine.

The precise etymological root of much of medicine's jargon would not alleviate this problem, at least to my perception.

In particular it might reduce dependence on lawyers since the average person could more easily understand the law.

Because of my knowledge of Latin I can comprehend a very large percentage of words in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Romansch, and Romanian languages. That alone makes Latin useful, because it provides a base for learning not only our language but teaches about the common connections between our language and other languages, making them easier to learn in turn (or quite possibly obviating the need to learn them at all). Knowledge of Latin allows for easy reference in biology (classification), medicine, and the Law, because you can instantly understand the word's literal meaning.

I will allow that the use of Greek in our society and its relevance to foreign languages is much less than that of Latin, and a programme of Latin with certain Greek references (which were often passed through Latin documents) may indeed be sufficient. But the entire teaching of these traditional languages cannot be left out; they are a foundation for all aspects of our culture and our knowledge of them is fundamental to understanding where we came from, and what our own historical leaders have used for inspiration in the creation of our modern institutions. These languages have a great deal of practical benefit and besides, are an implementable solution to some problems we now face, which is the critical thing.

Fine arts education, like organized sports, is not a sufficiently pressing need for our society to justify government subidization pre-collegiate level. Both organized sports and fine arts should be encouraged and organized privately, with some government subsidization (assuming the clubs and groups meet certain criteria).

I don't really have a problem with that in regard to organized spots, though the physical health of the body is very important and a rigorous exercise regimen is an absolute demand of the public education system. It will certainly save more money than it costs in the long run for our society. "Art Appreciation" in my sense is simply how it ties into culture, and what proper forms of art are.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Organized sports teams are a net-loss (a very large loss, proportionally) for High Schools and benefit only a very small minority by their very nature. They need to be slashed from every Middle School and High School in the nation. Together with removal of the Fine Arts to privatization, the amount of money freed up with be tremendous.

[Keevan_Colton]

I will allow that the use of Greek in our society and its relevance to foreign languages is much less than that of Latin, and a programme of Latin with certain Greek references (which were often passed through Latin documents) may indeed be sufficient. But the entire teaching of these traditional languages cannot be left out; they are a foundation for all aspects of our culture and our knowledge of them is fundamental to understanding where we came from, and what our own historical leaders have used for inspiration in the creation of our modern institutions. These languages have a great deal of practical benefit and besides, are an implementable solution to some problems we now face, which is the critical thing.

Dead languages and the carcasses of dead cultures to keep our society thriving.

Methinks the Duchess has missed something....perhaps, a clue.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You want to teach latin for fucks sake yet decry art as a waste of time.

She's right, quite frankly. A person with a working knowledge of Latin can learn any of the Romance languages far more easily than otherwise. Its a key that opens many doors that way.

You want to create useful adults to feed a machinery of commerce.

You survive in this world by making a living and providing for yourself. Seeing the number of people who can do this marginally at best, its a more pressing concern than creating utopian leftist Star Trek wonderland.

That is all you are concerned with, I've heard you described as an ultra-facist before, but it's things like this that really bring it home.

Why is latin important to creating your happy little workers...or is it just you like latin?...you have your own agenda which often crops up, it's just one that makes no sense.

Latin makes understanding of legal terminology simple, it makes biology taxonomy clear, and most importantly by far, its a window to every one of the European Romance languages, which are increasingly vital in our modern global economy and an excellent first step in breaking the isolationist and insular attitudes of the common American.

I ask you now, why teach a dead language over creative arts?

To ram-rod creative arts through when they have little objective, quantificable benefit to our society and when such classes benefit a comparatively very tiny portion of the populace, it is greatly wasteful and unfair. You're allocating a grossly disproportionate amount of time and funds to a small, select group with dubious gain in the end.

You frankly are one of the most frightening people I have heard when it comes to any kind of social agenda.

Every thread I see you in you lash first and argue the substance later. Try just for a moment imagining someone besides Marina typing the above.

[Broomstick]

Although I agree with much of your proposed educational system I do have a few quibbles.

Teaching should focus on hard science and mathematics from middle school onwards.

And logical thinking as well - memorizing facts and formulas is a useless exercise unless you can use them.

The school year would be organized into four quarters, each ten weeks long plus a finals week, in a style that would hopefully naturally get one used to college. There would be no extended summer break; studies have proven that just causes some students to fall behind. Instead, between each quarter there would be a break about exactly two weeks long (for a total of four such two week breaks). That would be combined with a reduced workload per quarter to spread out the learning and prevent a practice of, essentially, class-cramming that goes on today.

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have children on the beginning end of the process join in appropriate quarters, instead of once a year? The current system can result in a full year's difference between some children in the class, and at the age of 5 or 6 a year is an enormous chunk of development. Funneling children into the system in quarters may be beneficial, allowing children to enter when they are at the appropriate stage instead of forcing them in early (and they then struggle to catch up) or forcing them to wait.

complimented with instruction in latin and greek to gain a better understand of english grammar and the founding principles of our Republic.

First of all, English is niether a Greek nor a Latin language. The benefits of studying the grammer of those two languages could be obtained by studying the grammar of any modern language.

And truly, I think studying modern languages would be more useful over the long haul, with Greek and Latin being an option either towards the end of high school or in college. I'd prefer to see children gaining some proficiency in languages that will allow them to better communicate with and understand other people in the world.

Works of the great authors of those languages would be heavily emphasized; English authors come next followed by those of Germany, French, Italian, and Russian origin and at some point I'd want to make everyone read The Romance of the Three Kingdoms to give them an idea of the historical influences in China and the Sinicized regions, along with several works of the relevant philosophers.

And what, exactly, are children of 12 or 14 supposed to get out of this? Does any child that age have the intelluctual maturity to truly understand and appreciate some of these works? Too heavy an approach will turn kids off to reading - certainly they need to be challenged, but if you set the bar too high no one will reach it.

In general there would be three classes a quarter for a total of twelve a year but these would be relatively intense. You could expect to have one class be of mathematics, one of a hard science, and one of a "classical" or "liberal arts" nature each quarter.

Is this a ridgidly assigned curriculum, or at some point are the children allowed some input into what they take?

I have two concerns with that question. First, people are not cookies, and should not be subjected to a cookie-cutter process. Second, children need to learn decision making skills, and that should start as early as possible so they make mistakes when young enough to recover from them, and learn also how to deal with the consequences of their decisions. That requires real choices, real decisions, and real consequences. Of course, one should scale these things to something age-and-development appropriate, but it is an important skill that is sadly lacking in today's society.

Computers would not be introduced into the classroom until highschool at least and no mathematics class would allow calculators, period

I agree with the idea that one should learn to perform mental tasks without machines - however, in higher mathmetics and science one should be allowed calculators. By that time, under your system, students would have mastered the basic grunt-work of mathmatics and should be introduced to labor-saving tools. Emphasis would be on properly structuring calculations and problem-solving skills. One would have to earn the right to use a calculator by passing the preliminary classes for the advanced work.

A foreign language would be taught in addition to the mandatory latin and greek, and they would be practical languages for the modern world--Hindi, the far eastern tongues, perhaps Arabic. Only Spanish and Portuguese of the European languages is really worth learning if you have a firm grounding in the classical languages to begin with.

I still say start with the modern languages and cover the dead ones later - say, when involved with the hard sciences where Greek and Latin words are actually used. You want to teach the modern languages young so the children have a better chance at achieving true fluency.

And why do you discard every language in Europe outside of Spanish and Portugese? Portuguese? Is German so totally useless? What about Russian?

In arts classes you would not be taught how to do any of the arts; if you want to do that you would go to college. Instead they would be integrated into the liberal arts education in the form of the appreciation of proper artistic form and distinguishing real art from improper art; education would include teaching the meaning of particular artwork and the theme they are intended to focus upon. Music would largely be in the same category. Later on music would be an optional additional class for those committed enough to learn an instrument whilst maintaining all the other demands of school.

And who decides what is "proper" art? You?

Music, like language, is best learned young. I could see an argument that perhaps school is not the best forum for teaching it. But then I am biased, I admit - I taught myself to read music and play piano when I was about 6 years old.

Art is also best learned young - but perhaps your objection is to the make-work busy-work crap that passes for arts education in the public schools? (Where it still exists at all...) Basic drawing skills can be incorporated into other classes - see below for my "practical arts" contribution to your curriculum.

I think you ARE missing a large chunk of stuff -- namely practical life knowledge. I'm not sure what to call this, but it covers "manual arts" or "practical arts" or just "handy stuff to know". It would also incorporate your firearms classes.

Adult humans - that is, those who are in the 17-18 year old range - should be able to perform a variety of mundane tasks. Your firearms class covers just one task. Young adults should also know how to handle basic tools, and use them safely. They should be able to perform routine car maintenance - tire changes, check the oil, basic safety checks, know the maintenance schedules for oil changes, brake checks, and so forth - as well as be able to safely operate a car. They should be able to balance a checkbook, know when to seek professional accouting or law services and how to choose such a professional. They should know basic medical concepts, the routine medical checks adults should recieve, and warning signs of trouble. They should know basic first aid and CPR. They should know how to diaper and feed a baby - even if they don't plan to reproduce for a decade. They should know a variety of birth control methods and their usage. Adult humans should know how to perform basic cooking beyond heating a pre-prepared meal in a microwave.

And YES, this could be integrated into your curriculum. Firearms, for instance, would dovetail nicely with trigonometry. Approach it from the aspect of "and THIS is where trig meets the real world". Cooking is chemistry. The study of biology should include the study of human biology, including care and maintenance of the human body. Sewing garments includes both mathematics and reading of instructions/diagrams - and this is where drawing comes into the picture.

I guess my largest criticism is that your curiculum is too heavy on abstracts and acadmeics. Pre-adults - hell, even FULL adults - usually require a connection to the real world. NOT as make-work, or as an add-on, but a demonstration of WHY we need trig and pre-calc and foreign languages and the ability to communicate in writing. Well, there you go - teach trig AND it's application in ballistics, then take the kids to the firing range to put the knowledge into practice. Teaching basic chemistry? Teach them cooking (and the link between chemistry and biology) - and make that their lunch for a quarter. Teach them how to make soap as well as the difference between an acid and a base - I never made anything useful in chemistry, not even once - and why not? Aren't we surronded by useful chemicals? TRULY integrate the practical as well the abstract. Chemistry and algebra can combine nicely into a class on dyes - when I took a class in textile dyes in college it was alegebra we used to work out the mixing formulas to control the results, which were dependant in part on the chemical interactions between the fibers, dyes, and mordants - then make the kids use the resulting material to make clothes which they are required to wear for awhile - show them WHY they need to learn things, why this knowledge is useful. (Honestly, what we did, while somewhat tedious and intricate, was within the capability of 14 or 15 year old) While a great deal of it they will only use once, they will gain a better practical understanding of the world and a better appreciation for the processes required to make their material civilization. They will come to understand how to solve a problem, and the difficulty of putting theory into practice.

[Mayabird]

Since when do these art programs get shittons of money comparable to the sports? My band got nothing aside from the band director's paycheck. We had to do fundraisers to get anything.

Why this bitching about ART? Just cutting out football and all that entails would provide plenty of cash for everything else and would remove the jock mentality that gets in the way of actual education.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually, you don't need to be fluent in latin and greek at all to understand philosophy, our history, medicine or law. I've yet to encounter a important philosophical text where it was important to read the text in it's original Greek in order to get the underlying concept. Likewise, medicine and law both use alot of Latin and Greek terms, but you don't need to be able to speak Latin to get their concepts, they just become part of the vocabulary. After all, I don't need to speak Latin to know what quid quo pro or ipso facto means in terms of our law, nor need it to know that a bottle nosed dolphin is a tursiops truncatus. Teaching a person Latin won't do a person a bit of good in dealing with the law if they don't already understand the law to begin with.

The knowledge of what those words mean can bring immediate connections to their context, however, which shall always remain useful; they are also important in biological classification (a field which, though it has a set system, requires a fair bit of rote without knowledge of the meaning of the words) as well as medicine proper. And of course I already noted that Latin is very useful in understanding half a dozen European languages, or more, and making them easier for people who speak English to learn.

Tell any artist or musician that it's a waste of time. Do you think that the vast amount of people who play music professionally started in college without any education previously? Maybe you think that all those millions of concept drawings, product designs, and hell, even police sketchers produce themselves? Of course not. Artists and musicians find their starts early in their lives, not in college, and it's very important if we want artists and musicians in our society to keep it in our schools. Considering how much of our industry actually relies on the product of talented artists, I'd say it would be wise to train our children in it.

Obviously math skills are important for concept drawings since they rely on scale; practical geometry would in fact have a heavy art component to begin with and I already advocated that. One of the easiest ways to teach practical geometry in a classroom would be drawing of scaled pictures. I have no particular problem with teaching supporting fundamentals that are suitable for education to individuals at the elementary level, "art appreciation", IE, the teaching of the fundamentals of appropriate art, at higher levels; and the teaching of applied mathematics which is very useful in music and art also at those levels, but also has other very relevant uses, for instance, in drafting and engineering. Music should be an elective in addition to required courses and taken at the additional time of the student above and beyond normal classes.

Only a person who doesn't have a drop of artistic or musical talent would say that you could learn to be a professional artist or musician by exclusively taking courses in geometry without getting instruction in art and music, Marina. :lol: I'm starting to think that you honestly have no idea what goes into being a professional artist or musician and because you don't know what you are talking about you make the assumption "How hard could it be?"

Most of it is inborn talent, to be blunt.

It surely is political, if you'd pay attention, and making it a requirement for graduation from high school is doubly so.

It is only political because people are irrational. Teaching someone safety practices is not political in and of itself--it becomes it because people make it that way.

[frigidmagi]

Look asshole it's feel good lovey duby shit like yours that produced people like me. Everything I know and learned was in spite of the fucking system.

These kids need to learn Logic, Sciencitic Method, how to think rationally. The difference between impressism and surrealism doesn't mean jack shit when you have a population that can't tell the difference between real science and bullshit claptrap spewed from the machinations of small minded bigots who just want control.

We got serious problems that can only be solves with cold rational thought, art and music has enjoyable and has important has they might be, will just have to take a back seat until we get the house in order.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Since when do these art programs get shittons of money comparable to the sports? My band got nothing aside from the band director's paycheck. We had to do fundraisers to get anything.

Why this bitching about ART?

Because modern art is out of touch with the ideals of art as a means of expression. It's people getting praised for strewing junk around that have no meaning, or composing symphonies where the director just stands there and no music is played whatsoever. I don't believe that art gets a lot of money, I just don't think that beyond its relationships to mathematics and the teaching of the history and propiety of art it is not worthwhile beyond the elementary level. In the later elementary level some basic art principles might be touched upon but they should be taught to students as a method, not simply letting them strew around paint and praising them.

Just cutting out football and all that entails would provide plenty of cash for everything else and would remove the jock mentality that gets in the way of actual education.

I have no problem with that, exercise should be included, lots of daily physical exercise, as a mandatory event--but sports are simply irrelevant.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You want to create useful adults to feed a machinery of commerce. That is all you are concerned with, I've heard you described as an ultra-facist before, but it's things like this that really bring it home.

I'm not trying to create "happy workers", I'm trying to create people who can be successful in the modern world. That includes critical thinking, not blind obedience, rendering your points irrelevant at best and silly at worst.

I ask you now, why teach a dead language over creative arts?

Because that dead language has countless uses. You may be able to say some are irrelevant, but combined they justify the teaching of latin because of its wide applicability. It's an excellent subject to teach because you get a lot of value out of the time and money spent teaching it.