|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important.
I agree that financial literacy courses would be really useful.
I don't even think that stuff like credit score should be a mainstay in this. Credit score is both pretty advanced and pretty specific to the US system. Other countries which don't rely on credit as much don't have as much focus on a credit score.
The main thing is just "How to handle money" "Lots of small moneys is a big money" "Don't spend money that you don't have" "Credit isn't free money, if you buy stuff on credit you spend MORE total money than if you buy it when you have the money", stuff like that. Just stuff like looking objectively at what you spend your money on, and how to optimize that.
1 coffee for 5$ is not a big problem. But if you buy a 5$ coffee habitually on every work day, that means that you spend 100$+ a month on that coffee. Is that coffee worth as much as all the food you eat in a months? Couldn't you just buy a coffee machine for your place of work instead? Maybe there even is one already there! Buy a bag of coffee grounds and have 95$ to spend on cool shit. You could have 4-5kg of Lego just by making coffee at work instead of at Starbucks.
Or smoking. Fucking hell smoking. 7€ every 1-3 days to give you cancer. Don't smoke for a year, and not only do you get less cancer and smell better, but you can also buy yourself a new PC (or 50+ kgs of Lego!). And if you don't have the money to spend left over to get the PC at the end of the year, you couldn't afford to smoke anyways.
|
On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important.
I like you anti consumerism attitude. I don't like your conclusion with regards to education though (not the part about adding, it's the part you want to get rid of).
|
On November 21 2017 05:18 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important. Why don't we fuck science classes instead?
Wat..? You drastically need to expand your viewpoint here.
edit: or, depending on what it is: Don't. It seems pretty stupid
|
On November 21 2017 05:24 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 05:18 kollin wrote:On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important. Why don't we fuck science classes instead? Wat..? You drastically need to expand your viewpoint here. edit: or, depending on what it is: Don't. It seems pretty stupid
In all fairness, I have never used anything I learned in my HS science classes in everyday life. I have used the skills taught to me in my music classes every damn day when switching jobs to something new
|
kollin doesn't actually think that you should fuck science classes, guys...
|
On November 21 2017 03:40 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 02:22 Gahlo wrote:On November 21 2017 02:07 NewSunshine wrote:CALGARY – Nebraska’s Public Service Commission has approved TransCanada’s Keystone XL route in a 3 to 2 vote, clearing the last major regulatory hurdle for the controversial $10 billion project.
The panel’s approval came with a tight margin of victory for the pipeline, which would transport about 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Hardisty, Alta. to Steele City, Neb.
The vote comes as TransCanada continues to clean up a 5,000-barrel oil spill from its pipeline in nearby South Dakota that opponents have pointed to as reason not to approve Keystone XL.
Among other concerns, opponents of the 1,897-kilometre Keystone XL project say the pipeline would pass through the Sandhills, an ecologically fragile region in Nebraska of grass-covered sand dunes, and would cross the land of farmers and ranchers who don’t want it.
The commission, however, was specifically prohibited from evaluating safety considerations, including risk or impact of a spill, and will instead rule on issues including regulatory compliance, economic and social impacts of the project, the potential intrusion on natural resources, and whether better routes exist.
Barack Obama rejected Keystone XL in 2015 after years of review, only for President Donald Trump to give the go-ahead to the project in March, saying the pipeline will bring jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil. sourceSo Nebraska just voted to approve the Keystone pipeline, which just had a 210,000 gallon leak. Bolded is of particular interest. The Keystone Pipeline had the spill. The one that was controversial recently was the Keystone XL, which is supposed to replace it afaik. That changes my assessment of it slightly, but not much. As P6 points out, oversight and maintenance are the 2 biggest problems with a pipeline delivery system, so ignoring and deliberately stamping out assessments of safety and risk in the new line does not bode well.
Totally, I've just seen this mistake happen a lot when this story getting discussed and it getting used as a blanket disregard for a stance in general.
|
On November 21 2017 05:26 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 05:24 Excludos wrote:On November 21 2017 05:18 kollin wrote:On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important. Why don't we fuck science classes instead? Wat..? You drastically need to expand your viewpoint here. edit: or, depending on what it is: Don't. It seems pretty stupid In all fairness, I have never used anything I learned in my HS science classes in everyday life. I have used the skills taught to me in my music classes every damn day when switching jobs to something new
I bet you use everything you learned in science class damn near every day. It's not about the formulas, the chemistry or the math itself, it's about the way you think. If you have had science class, even if you never once had a use to know the escape velocity of Earths gravity, you at the very least know earth is older than 10000 years old and that females weren't created from one of the ribs of a man (or was it the other way around?). You learn to think based on facts and evidence, and that is important if you want society as a whole to actually advance forward.
On November 21 2017 05:27 Nebuchad wrote:
kollin doesn't actually think that you should fuck science classes, guys...
It may have gone over my head if he doesn't.
|
On November 21 2017 05:26 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 05:24 Excludos wrote:On November 21 2017 05:18 kollin wrote:On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important. Why don't we fuck science classes instead? Wat..? You drastically need to expand your viewpoint here. edit: or, depending on what it is: Don't. It seems pretty stupid In all fairness, I have never used anything I learned in my HS science classes in everyday life. I have used the skills taught to me in my music classes every damn day when switching jobs to something new
The idea isn't necessarily that you explicitly use the exact thing you learned in science class. The idea of science classes is to
a) Teach a general science literacy so you can actually understand what people are talking about
b) Teach a way of thinking and how to efficiently use it. Have an idea, test it by experiment, if necessary amend or dismiss idea. Continue until you have figured out how stuff works.
In the same way, i see the upper end of high school maths (Basically starting from about 9th to 10th grade when stuff becomes more abstract) both as a tool to teach actual maths that people use or maths they need to know to understand what people are talking about (Statistics is incredibly important in this regard, but most importantly as a way of teaching how to actually build an argument. Maths is all about building working arguments.
I am not totally against musics or art lessons in school, but i don't think that i especially benefitted from those that i had a lot. Mostly i remember getting into trouble with my incredibly fundamentalist christian musics teacher, who thought that i am a bad person and worship satan because i wore a metal t-shirt.
But i don't think the question of what to cut to put in personal finance is the most important. The main question is whether you think that personal finance is more important than something in the current school curriculum. And i think most people agree with that. At that point, it only becomes a question of what to cut, which might even be a choice made by the individual student.
|
I want people who post here about cutting art classes to appreciate that we're posting on a forum for a video game made by artists on a website designed by artists. 
|
On November 21 2017 05:35 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 05:26 IyMoon wrote:On November 21 2017 05:24 Excludos wrote:On November 21 2017 05:18 kollin wrote:On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important. Why don't we fuck science classes instead? Wat..? You drastically need to expand your viewpoint here. edit: or, depending on what it is: Don't. It seems pretty stupid In all fairness, I have never used anything I learned in my HS science classes in everyday life. I have used the skills taught to me in my music classes every damn day when switching jobs to something new The idea isn't necessarily that you explicitly use the exact thing you learned in science class. The idea of science classes is to a) Teach a general science literacy so you can actually understand what people are talking about b) Teach a way of thinking and how to efficiently use it. Have an idea, test it by experiment, if necessary amend or dismiss idea. Continue until you have figured out how stuff works. In the same way, i see the upper end of high school maths (Basically starting from about 9th to 10th grade when stuff becomes more abstract) both as a tool to teach actual maths that people use or maths they need to know to understand what people are talking about (Statistics is incredibly important in this regard, but most importantly as a way of teaching how to actually build an argument. Maths is all about building working arguments. I am not totally against musics or art lessons in school, but i don't think that i especially benefitted from those that i had a lot. Mostly i remember getting into trouble with my incredibly fundamentalist christian musics teacher, who thought that i am a bad person and worship satan because i wore a metal t-shirt. But i don't think the question of what to cut to put in personal finance is the most important. The main question is whether you think that personal finance is more important than something in the current school curriculum. And i think most people agree with that. At that point, it only becomes a question of what to cut, which might even be a choice made by the individual student.
These are the same things taught in music (and in my opinion in a much more fun way)
A) You're taught a basic literacy of musical eras so you can understand the difference
B) Teach a way of thinking about how a melody should go, how things interact , how to best bring out your ideas and what needs to be held off on through a process of trail and error while examining your choices
I agree that a finance class would be better for students. I say we just cut PE, useless class. if kids need more time to run around extend lunch
|
Apparently Trump’s request for disaster relief didn’t include anything for California’s wild fires. Every day this President is more like Nixon.
|
Hey that's not fair. Nixon wouldn't have forgotten about the state he came from.
|
On November 21 2017 05:24 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 05:18 kollin wrote:On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important. Why don't we fuck science classes instead? Wat..? You drastically need to expand your viewpoint here. edit: or, depending on what it is: Don't. It seems pretty stupid
I think that xDaunt's approach to education (or at least the general approach he is offering in this post) is fairly awful and encapsulates the STEM supremacy, 'school should teach me how to fix my boiler and do my taxes' mindset that some people have. Education should not just be one of many stepping stones to employment in a STEM field, and treating it as such reduces the value of it immensely (though it should prepare you for adult life, and I think that financial literacy and other topics related to personal development should be effectively taught).
|
On November 21 2017 05:31 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 05:26 IyMoon wrote:On November 21 2017 05:24 Excludos wrote:On November 21 2017 05:18 kollin wrote:On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important. Why don't we fuck science classes instead? Wat..? You drastically need to expand your viewpoint here. edit: or, depending on what it is: Don't. It seems pretty stupid In all fairness, I have never used anything I learned in my HS science classes in everyday life. I have used the skills taught to me in my music classes every damn day when switching jobs to something new I bet you use everything you learned in science class damn near every day. It's not about the formulas, the chemistry or the math itself, it's about the way you think. If you have had science class, even if you never once had a use to know the escape velocity of Earths gravity, you at the very least know earth is older than 10000 years old and that females weren't created from one of the ribs of a man (or was it the other way around?). You learn to think based on facts and evidence, and that is important if you want society as a whole to actually advance forward. Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 05:27 Nebuchad wrote:
kollin doesn't actually think that you should fuck science classes, guys... It may have gone over my head if he doesn't.
there's a fair amount of shoddy science education which doesn't teach the way of thinking much at all, but just gives you some of the facts. it's still better than nothing.
|
|
|
On November 21 2017 05:54 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 05:24 Excludos wrote:On November 21 2017 05:18 kollin wrote:On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important. Why don't we fuck science classes instead? Wat..? You drastically need to expand your viewpoint here. edit: or, depending on what it is: Don't. It seems pretty stupid I think that xDaunt's approach to education (or at least the general approach he is offering in this post) is fairly awful and encapsulates the STEM supremacy, 'school should teach me how to fix my boiler and do my taxes' mindset that some people have. Education should not just be one of many stepping stones to employment in a STEM field, and treating it as such reduces the value of it immensely (though it should prepare you for adult life, and I think that financial literacy and other topics related to personal development should be effectively taught).
His approach to education is horrendous because it isn't education. It becomes job training and you can't have a functional democracy with the educational framework that most conservatives argue for.
That said, you don't really need to cut anything. You just need to use time more efficiently. Many students have an incredible amount of extra time because it's wasted in PE classes where you don't do anything, study halls, or arbitrary class time spent on standardized tests, "Homeroom" classes, etc.
|
The classes are only as good as the program and people teaching it. The impression I’m getting is that education in the United States is all round terrible.
Music programs in particular are extremely useful as a means for people to learn how to properly work together, which is something that the majority of university/college students don’t know how to do since they keep moaning about group work.
There’s also a whole host of additional benefits that can’t be easily quantified but it’s no surprise that private schools generally have very robust music programs and those who enter that music program are often stellar students in some capacity. They aren’t keeping expensive arts programs (and they are extremely expensive) for no reason.
Even our PE class was useful as it taught proper eating habits and strength training methods that I still use to this day.
You don’t need to cut subjects, you need to make subjects useful.
|
"all round terrible" isn't quite right, there are plenty of world-class educational institutions spanning the entire country, public, private, charter, or otherwise. The problem relates instead to consistency and extreme differences between schools mere blocks away from one another, among other things.
|
I’ve also noticed that those who advocate for “the arts” often fail to appreciate the necessity of the reverse, of artistically inclined individuals having to learn calculus, physics, biology, and the like. The roundedness is often unidirectional and it makes me wonder if it’s less about roundedness and more about reversing the trend of what is popular.
|
That's silly; people are more likely to be seen defending art/music classes because art/music classes are the first things on the chopping block when austerity bullshit comes a calling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
