The Disaster Area of American Public Education

[psikeyhackr]

Much of what one learns in the military is useless in civilian life. However, the discipline you experience can be a lifelong asset.

What? I can't do maintenance on nuclear weapons any more?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've been in civilian classrooms and military classrooms. The difference is night and day. Civilian schools are run by amateurs, military by professionals.

Oh, I'm totally sure there's a difference.
However there are a lot more factors at play here.

You said "he military disciplinary methodology will work anywhere with any subject."
I disagree with this.
In the US military, where the students are volunteers, the teachers are professional because the Army is professional, then you're going to get that.

However, imagine the Army goes into a ghetto high school where the kids couldn't give a damn and he has to teach English freaking Literature to a bunch of kids who struggle to read.

There are going to be problems. The Army's way isn't going to work.
Also in schools there are plenty of professional teachers. I've worked with one guy from Mississippi and he is a great teacher. He's hard working, smart, engages with the kids.... everything you want from a teacher. I know he'd teacher better than an army guy in a primary school because he's experienced and good at his job.
I'm sure there are very good teachers in the Army too, every industry has good and not so good and bad....

 

[frigidweirdo]

You just proved that you have never been in a military classroom. You have no standing in the discussion.

Bullshit, you fucking know fucking nothing about me. Don't play silly little fucking games, I don't talk to such people.

 

[Woodznutz]

Oh, I'm totally sure there's a difference.
However there are a lot more factors at play here.

You said "he military disciplinary methodology will work anywhere with any subject."
I disagree with this.
In the US military, where the students are volunteers, the teachers are professional because the Army is professional, then you're going to get that.

However, imagine the Army goes into a ghetto high school where the kids couldn't give a damn and he has to teach English freaking Literature to a bunch of kids who struggle to read.

There are going to be problems. The Army's way isn't going to work.
Also in schools there are plenty of professional teachers. I've worked with one guy from Mississippi and he is a great teacher. He's hard working, smart, engages with the kids.... everything you want from a teacher. I know he'd teacher better than an army guy in a primary school because he's experienced and good at his job.
I'm sure there are very good teachers in the Army too, every industry has good and not so good and bad....

One of the 'other factors' that makes military training unique is that soldiers are tested for aptitude before being assigned to their specialties. In your 'ghetto' example only kids who passed an aptitude test for such a course would be allowed into it.

It's the military methodology that makes it so successful. If civilian education is to be as successful it must begin in the earliest grades. It can't be suddenly imposed on students that are used to undisciplined learning.

 

[Woodznutz]

Bullshit, you fucking know fucking nothing about me. Don't play silly little fucking games, I don't talk to such people.

Wait, what? You can 'prove' things about me without knowing me but I can't return the favor?

 

[Unkotare]

I've been in civilian classrooms and military classrooms. The difference is night and day. Civilian schools are run by amateurs, military by professionals.

Wrong. Think of a more obvious difference.

 

[Woodznutz]

Wrong. Think of a more obvious difference.

Another obvious difference is that military training is targeted for a specific purpose. Civilian education is meant more for socialization of the citizenry. Sadly, civilian education has failed in this purpose as it fails to overcome the influence of human nature as does that of the military. In fact, civilian education exacerbates social problems by highlighting and casting in stone the superiority and inferiority of different classes of people via the grading system, which together with the 'probationary' period of learning consigns those who fare poorly to the lower regions of the economy.

 

[Unkotare]

Another obvious difference is that military training is targeted for a specific purpose. Liberal Arts not useful.

What exactly are you comparing?

 

[Woodznutz]

What exactly are you comparing?

Reread. I edited that post.

But to sort of answer your question. The military doesn't engage in intellectual exercises for the sake of broadening one's social perspective. Everything is real world stuff. You have classes on how to shoot a cannon, then you go out and shoot the cannon.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wait, what? You can 'prove' things about me without knowing me but I can't return the favor?

Or maybe what I was doing was pointing out that what you said didn't do anything for this conversation. And you literally replied back with more stuff. What I said worked.

What you said was just nonsense. And here we are talking pointless bullshit because YOU decided to go down that road.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Another obvious difference is that military training is targeted for a specific purpose. Civilian education is meant more for socialization of the citizenry. Sadly, civilian education has failed in this purpose as it fails to overcome the influence of human nature as does that of the military. In fact, civilian education exacerbates social problems by highlighting and casting in stone the superiority and inferiority of different classes of people via the grading system, which together with the 'probationary' period of learning consigns those who fare poorly to the lower regions of the economy.

Education is run by politicians. It's run by people with no idea of what education is. You get these people who want an easy life by getting into government and manipulating people rather than being informed politicians.

The US electoral system causes this. In order to get elected it's not about what they stand for, it's about them standing up and making people like them. All they need to do, in many cases, is make enough people of their own party like them and they're in government.

The whole of society is struggling because of this issue. Yes, education is a big part of this.
Kids should be taught in schools how to be decent humans beings, with adult skills, like choosing partners, like bring up kids, having job skills, decision making skills.

How do Democrats and Republicans see education?
From a very, VERY generalized view, we could say Democrats want "equality" which means no one learns anything and Republicans want religion everywhere so that people only learn pointless stuff.

It's never going to work unless the electoral system changes.

 

[Woodznutz]

"Kids should be taught in schools how to be decent humans beings, with adult skills, like choosing partners, like bring up kids, having job skills, decision making skills."

This is the "pointless stuff" that religion and conservatism seeks to teach.

 

[Woodznutz]

What you said was just nonsense. And here we are talking pointless bullshit because YOU decided to go down that road.

I'm sorry that you didn't understand what I said.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is the "pointless stuff" that religion and conservatism seeks to teach.

Is it though? No, not really.

They teach people to be decent human beings by telling them to pound on gay people.

When has Christianity ever taught anyone to choose the right partner? I mean, for a long time there were arranged marriages and the like.

What job skills the Christians teach?
Get this, Edward VII of England, son of Queen Victoria, before he was the king he was having an affair. Essentially, as the future head of the Church of England he was told "It's okay, as long as the plebs don't find out". The Christian Churches were often corrupt, at the top there were power hungry and evil people running the church to keep the poor people down.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sorry that you didn't understand what I said.

"You just proved that you have never been in a military classroom. You have no standing in the discussion."
What am I supposed to understand from this?

What I got was A) "I'm telling you about your life" and B) "You can't talk about this issue because I'm taking the moral high ground"

 

[Jarlaxle]

The military disciplinary methodology will work anywhere with any subject. It eliminates the choice that public school grants it's students; the option to deliberately not learn.

That's the stupides thing I have seen in weeks.

And? Students don't graduate just for showing up.

In some places...yes, they do.

 

[Woodznutz]

That's the stupides thing I have seen in weeks.



In some places...yes, they do.

Your second response contradicts your first, and supports my assertion.

 

[Woodznutz]

"You just proved that you have never been in a military classroom. You have no standing in the discussion."
What am I supposed to understand from this?

What I got was A) "I'm telling you about your life" and B) "You can't talk about this issue because I'm taking the moral high ground"

You seem to have an opinion about the military teaching method without (apparently) having any experience with it. What else am I to conclude?

 

[Woodznutz]

They teach people to be decent human beings by telling them to pound on gay people.

The Bible teaches to love the sinner, hate the sin.

When has Christianity ever taught anyone to choose the right partner? I mean, for a long time there were arranged marriages and the like.

The Bible teaches not to be "unequally yoked" to another. Believers should marry believers.

What job skills the Christians teach?

The Bible teaches, "Whatever your hand finds to do (your occupation) do it with all your might".

The Bible speaks to spirit-led people, not to unbelievers.

 

[Unkotare]

...

The Bible teaches not to be "unequally yoked" to another. Believers should marry believers.
....

I don't recall anyone ever suggesting I had to marry a Catholic.