Should school be mandatory?

[Bast]

You're so incredibly wrong it's not worth my time correcting you.

How dare you criticize me? If you have something to say, say it!

 

[Mise]

Schooling isn't child abuse, mandatory schooling is. Not sure about being unable to do simple math, but the other half of the definition implies that the vast majority of people in history were abused as children. (Literacy rate of India was 12% in 1947, rate in China was 20% in 1949.) But apart from the overly broad definition of "child abuse", I agree with the sentiment.

Denying a child an education is child abuse. If you want to stretch the definition of "denying" to "living and breeding in a country in which education is too expensive to provide on a scale wide enough to adequately provide" then that's your fault

 

[amadeus]

How dare you criticize me?

Srsly.

 

[Elta]

It should be compulsory all the way to first an undergraduate degree. And public funded. Anything after that, you pay yourself and it's up to you whether you want to do further study or not.

You can't survive in today's world without at least an undergraduate degree.

Define surviving in today's world.

 

[nc-1701]

Education is important and should definitely be mandatory, but with a variety of options. Requiring all children to attend cookie cutter public high schools is a mistake, private schools and homeschooling should always be available options as well. Assuming acceptable standardized test scores etc.

That said, based on my experiences I think starting school later, perhaps between 8 and 10 years old would be better than the about 5 we have now. Honestly the things kids send years learning in early grade school can be learned in a few weeks of the tweens/early teens. A child's early life should be concentrated as much as possible on allowing them to explore the world informally with their natural curiosity. Let them loose on an old garden with Tonka trucks, etc. Formal schooling should be mandatory, but not for very young children who can't really benefit much anyway, and are imo actually harmed by the excess structure.

 

[PiMan]

It should be compulsory all the way to first an undergraduate degree. And public funded. Anything after that, you pay yourself and it's up to you whether you want to do further study or not.

You can't survive in today's world without at least an undergraduate degree.

We wouldn't survive in today's world without people who chose educational paths other than university. Tradespeople don't need university education, they need real, on the job, training.

I support compulsory education up to year 10 or 11, but don't force people to be in uni if it won't be of use to them.

 

[azzaman333]

How dare you criticize me? If you have something to say, say it!

If you can prove that people without at least an undergrad degree all live off the dole, I'll accept your previous post as not being the most post I've read today.

 

[Grey Fox]

"Yes, all the way to high school"

Cause kids cant make that decision, and afterwards it's too late. The brain is tuned for learning in those ages.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

The people who conflate school and education in this thread crack me up.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

As for courses such as physics, who cares?

I don't know about your country, but my country doesn't force physics onto kids in high school. It forces history though...

 

[downtown]

The people who conflate school and education in this thread crack me up.

says the dropout

 

[Flying Pig]

What's wrong with dropping out? I left school at 16, and I've done more than most people with degrees can claim. That said, I think school is fundamentally good for you - I only left because my family were pretty hard up (my dad and brother earned most of our money, but they died) and some of us needed to find a job.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

says the dropout

who got into university a year early due to finishing secondary school stuff while in primary school, has a job now, and will be going back to finish university in a year or two, probably after paying off his student loan

(Also, ad hominem. Also, my terminology may be off but I did complete all regular schooling up to and including 18 years of age.)

 

[Lord Baal]

no. children should have the right to work 18 hour jobs in the acid mines if they wish to.

You mean if their parents wish. They own their children, after all.

No, but if students can't pass standardized tests at the age of 18, they should be put to death.

This is wasteful. There are plenty of menial jobs currently performed by immigrants which stupid people would be suited for. Also, I don't want to have to clean my flat, the government should provide a stupid person to do this for me on a weekly basis.

Nah school is pointless for so many people. We don't need everybody spending all those years, and then going to university just to become a paper pusher in an office building.
Just at school, the teachers scream that we will not go anywhere in life without a university education!
But they sound like their lying because well they are educators and partial towards more and more education.

We just don't need that many graduates, since most of the stuff you learn is not gonna help you push papers.

(bolding mine)

How can you say that, when we see the wonders it has done for you?

The denial of education by a parent is child abuse. I'm against child abuse.

This.

It should be sort of mandatory, but nothing like the system that we have now.

Also, this.

CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION

People who go to college tend to be hardworking, smart, and raised by financially successful people. A lot of their gains can be attributed to that.

A hardworking and smart person raised to be financially adept will likely do well regardless of education.

Of course, that doesn't mean college doesn't effect earning potential. But the effect is less significant then some would have us think.

I take offence at this. I go to college, and am neither hard-working nor smart. You take it back!

No it should not be if the person does not want to go who is the goverment to tell someone what to do with there life?

See below:

Minors are not, and should not be legally allowed to make that decision.

I like it the way it is (or was; I don't know if they've changed it in the last few months, or are going to change it soon). Mandatory to the end of Year 10, and optional after that. Raising the leaving age to above that, or to an actual age, rather than academic level (as the government either has or will, I can't remember) is pointless, and only disadvantages those that do want an education, rather than advantaging those that do not. I argued this before with, I think, downtown, but I don't think that there is any benefit of delinquents or those less academically and more practically inclined from remaining at school in years 11 and 12, when they could be doing something more productive, like pursuing vocational education, taking an apprenticeship, etc. If they are at school, they'll just disrupt everyone and won't learn anything, or at least anything useful to their future career path. Of course, it's situational.

So far as I know it's never been mandatory to Year 10. I knew a lot of people in high school who dropped out upon turning 15.

It should be compulsory all the way to first an undergraduate degree. And public funded. Anything after that, you pay yourself and it's up to you whether you want to do further study or not.

You can't survive in today's world without at least an undergraduate degree.

I agree, my mother starved to death decades ago, my next-door neighbours all have cholera, and the various people I see on the streets of Parramatta are all slowly dying from their lack of an undergraduate degree. My uncle, the successful farmer, would have died years ago if not for my banker father's financial charity.

Srsly.

This is an epic post.

My views: Some form of schooling should be compulsory. I don't care if it's home-schooling, public schooling, or someting else, but schooling of a sort should be required, preferably something better than our current system. You should be required to achieve a certain level of education, let's just arbitrarily say the School Certificate (Year 10 over here). I don't care if you achieve it by going through school at the regular pace, a faster pace, or a slower pace, or through a different route entirely. I'd prefer people be required to attain this level even after the age of 18 before they are allowed to do certain things, but they have the right not to. If they wish to remain stupid, let them.

 

[Camikaze]

So far as I know it's never been mandatory to Year 10. I knew a lot of people in high school who dropped out upon turning 15.

Yeah, that was just a bit of a simplification. It's 14 and 9 months, with parental permission, or the end of Year 10 otherwise. However, from next year, it is changing to finishing the HSC or 17. You can leave before that, but you must have a full-time job or apprenticeship, or have enrolled in TAFE. Personally, I think it is stupid, but I suppose that with the requirement that they get a job or further education, it makes more sense.

 

[Atlas14]

You can't survive in today's world without at least an undergraduate degree.

My neighbor has a house worth prob. about $450,000 and never went to college, plus has 4 kids. He didn't inherit it either.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I take it Bast believes that Bill Gates (and other Harvard drop-outs like him) does not make enough to support himself?

Those who get accepted to the best schools but don't go tend to do about as well as those who do attend. There seems to be a confounding variable here rather than causation.

 

[Lord Baal]

Yeah, that was just a bit of a simplification. It's 14 and 9 months, with parental permission, or the end of Year 10 otherwise. However, from next year, it is changing to finishing the HSC or 17. You can leave before that, but you must have a full-time job or apprenticeship, or have enrolled in TAFE. Personally, I think it is stupid, but I suppose that with the requirement that they get a job or further education, it makes more sense.

I thought that was the age, since that's the age at which one can - legally - get a job.

I presume you're talking about this story, which I found to be oddly fortuitous timing on the part of our media, and was coming to this thread to post when I saw your reply.

Teenagers to 'learn or earn' from 2010

The ACT Legislative Assembly has passed new laws making it compulsory for young people under 17 to be at school, in training or working.

The so-called 'learn or earn' legislation will come into effect from next year.

It means young people under 17 who do not meet the requirements will lose their Commonwealth benefits.

Education Minister Andrew Barr says the legislation gives young people more flexibility.

"It's about providing options, training, employment and schooling needs to meet the needs of a diverse range of students," he said.

"It's about helping young people to find their passion. It's about saying there are no more excuses."

Mr Barr says it brings the Territory into line with other jurisdictions.

The Liberals and the Greens supported the bill.

But Greens Leader Meredith Hunter raised some questions.

"Our concern is that the learn or earn policy will not fit everyone," she said.

"What happens to those tho don't fit the new system?"

The Liberals also have reservations.

Education spokesman Steve Doszpot says the Government needs to make sure it does not generate more red tape.

"This initiative will be a work in progress," he said.

Both the Liberals and the Greens urged the Government to closely monitor the policy's introduction to ensure young people are not disadvantaged.

That's just the ACT though. Have they done something similar in NSW?

By the way, people's thoughts on that article, which is strangely appropriate for this thread? Personally, I think it's a good idea, but that's based on a general knowledge of the subject. I don't know the exact wording of the new laws, and what exactly they entail. The definition of "at school training, or working," for example.

 

[Harshad]

An Education should be mandatory.

 

[Camikaze]

That's just the ACT though. Have they done something similar in NSW?

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/minimum-school-leaving-age-jumps-to-17-20090128-7r4d.html

By the way, people's thoughts on that article, which is strangely appropriate for this thread? Personally, I think it's a good idea, but that's based on a general knowledge of the subject. I don't know the exact wording of the new laws, and what exactly they entail. The definition of "at school training, or working," for example.

I'm adverse to any raising of the school leaving age as just a demagogic policy without much thought put into it. However, so long as there are guarantees that you still can leave earlier provided you find employment, or TAFE, or an apprenticeship, then it should be reasonably okay, although I would assume that those that really aren't going to be of benefit to society throughout their life will just end up clogging senior years up without any benefit, through their laziness in finding a job or anything other than school, and their inability, or lack of desire, to learn.