Re: NOW(-ish): Education

Jeff Taylor (
Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:03:33 -0800

Perhaps the real issue is that the current mode of education is just barely effectual. I personally failed in the public education system as an early study of hyperactive or 'ADD' children. I was had a powerful sense of curiosity and found myself bored to tears in conventional American public schools. Eventually, I was fortunate enough to enroll in a private school who had a radically different, scalable approach to education. I learned at my own pace and with topics I excelled at, I was allowed to move swiftly through them. I went from being a c-f graded student to a 'straight a' student. Also, we were encouraged to explore unusual topics such as Philosophy, which for a curious 5th grader was absolutely fascinating.

I personally agree that the current educational systems of the world are largely failing to work efficiently. I'd say that my American educational system is suffering a legacy of buraucracy but perhaps suffers due to practical issues like budgets and staffing.

I've noticed that the evolution of education has been severely inhibited. Is this a subversive maneuver to preserve the economic class structures?

A poorly educated nation is easiest to govern. Perhaps that is why so little is spent educating our people. (in the USA)

Jeff Taylor


"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course,
powerful muscles, but no personality."
-Albert Einstein


>From: "Jocelyn Brown" <>
>To: <>
>Subject: Re: NOW(-ish): Education
>Date: Tue, Mar 30, 1999, 10:03 AM

>>It seems too me that one of the basic skills that people learn in school
> is:
>>how to learn. Assuming that this is a genetic trait, what if the child
> never
>>wants to learn to read because playing outside with friends is more fun?
>>There are windows of opportunity to learn certain types of skills when you
>>are young that increasingly become difficult with age. e.g. learning a
>>lanuage. I think the window is between 0-7 years. During this time, isn't
> it
>>easier to learn one or more lanuages?
>>jeff taylor
> First off, if a child does not wish to learn to read, then forcing the
> subject on him will only cause him harm, and will certainly not teach him to
> enjoy reading. I do believe it is easier to learn to read up until a certain
> age, and I'll accept your age of 7 for the sake of discussion, because I
> don't have more accurate information. It is my belief, and I think the
> success of SVS shows, that if children want to learn, and if they have to
> read to learn, that they will want to learn to read. But they have to decide
> when. I was reading at age 3-4, not because of school but because my parents
> read to me and I wanted to learn it. My husband, who is more intelligent
> than I am, learned to read between the ages of 6-7. He just wasn't ready
> before then. But when he was ready, he did it, and he did it because he
> wanted to.
> What you say about languages is also true -- it is far easier to learn them
> at a young age. But once again, how does this typically come into practice?
> Not by them being taken to classes at age 3 to learn to speak French. It
> happens by living in a multilingual household or by spending time in foreign
> countries during these developmental years. Personally, I highly recommend
> this and intend to do it with my own children when I have them.
> Jocelyn Brown
> Version: 3.1
> GCA d- s: a- C++ U--- P--- L-- W+ N w+ M- PS+++ PE+++ Y+ t--- 5++ X+ R+ tv+
> b++ DI++ D+ G e+ h- r+++ x+++++
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------