The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XLIII

Do you have to eat school lunches in USA or eat your own?
It depends upon the school. Public and private are different. In most public schools you have a choice of eating what the school provides or bringing your own. If you are eligible for a free lunch program, you get what is offered.
 
It depends upon the school. Public and private are different. In most public schools you have a choice of eating what the school provides or bringing your own. If you are eligible for a free lunch program, you get what is offered.

Cool. I don't think I woukd want to eat what's on offer
 
The first school I attended was a county school, and everyone had to bring their own lunch. There was no cafeteria there, and students weren't allowed to leave.

Then I went to a public school in the city, and everyone went home for lunch.

Then back to the county school, where I joined the prefect program. That meant partnering with another Grade 7 student to supervise the Grades 1-4 kids at lunchtime when their own teachers ate in the staff room. I quickly learned to take lunches that others would find off-putting, since my partner had a habit of stealing my sandwiches.

After we moved into town, I was still allowed to attend the county school (took some arranging by my dad to do this; we lived just half a block from the school and I desperately didn't want to go to the public junior high). So I was close enough to come home for lunch now and then, with a noon-hour pass. It was nice to have the occasional break from sandwiches.

Sandwiches came back, though, in high school. That school had a cafeteria, but I never ate there. I think I went in there about twice. The whole place reeked of ketchup, because most of the students' lunches there included a helping of french fries and ketchup.
 
What do you know about humanism?

I find it as an answer to most political dilemmas. It stands above left-right, democrat/liberal dichotomies. Its core values are respect for others, because they are human. Realizing one's full potential. Secularism and education for universal knowledge of modern day science.

I see identity politics in USA everywhere. Humanism is a strong answer. You can't tell that other person is not human and make me hate him, because they are human, no matter their identity.

Humanistic pedagogy is a pedagogy school which advocates for teachers as facilitators. Kids have to be earnest, curious, determined. Such school can work only if the individual is inclined towards
ethical way of living. By that I mean "work hard, work an honorable job, be grateful". There are very few such schools, because people, in many cases, use any loopholes in legal system to get rich.

Therefore people nowadays care much less if the money is earned by malicious marketing methods or not.

As of now, humanism and humanistic pedagogy has existed for almost a century if not more, but since the rich people are admired/paid attention to much more than the honest people, not many see inherent value in being good for conscience's sake alone.

As a pipe dream it exists, it is included in official university programs as a theoretically viable way of teaching if students with such ideals would be found.

It is an unicorn in university curriculum, an utopia of sorts. Compared to strict behaviorism system where every offense to school rules gets penalized with social work.

 
Last edited:
It wanders into the school of ought and value judgements, the realm of the divine. But it doesn't hold services and organize followup to be lived.

Humans might be about the only thing actually worth hating on the planet. I might dislike certain insects, or weeds, or storms. But that's all they are. An insect, a weed. They do what they do and don't have much in the way of choice about it. Actual malice, actual evil, actual sadism and will to dominate, those are choices humans make.
 
Are you saying that it would only be taught if you can find students who already think that way? How would you go about finding such students? If their parents don't give them a head start, they may never realize that it's a way of thinking that could lead to this education.
 
Are you saying that it would only be taught if you can find students who already think that way? How would you go about finding such students? If their parents don't give them a head start, they may never realize that it's a way of thinking that could lead to this education.

Not quite. In humanistic schools usually it is a contract in written form between 3 sides - parents, students and school staff. All 3 sides put their signatures to fulfill these ideals and try to operate within this framework. That makes it easier to expel the student if there is negligence of studies. Because those studies are organized in a way that students themselves pick up classes they have interest in, they send in homework and they ask for consultations if they get stuck. Classes are often times outside and in a seminar format with healthy discussion going on, which builds up critical thinking.

Many relatively famous teaching methods like Montessori and Rudolph Steiner (Waldorf education) schools borrow a lot from this method.

On the other hand, students come to school already received education from kindergarten and home. If parents don't take time to explain why something is bad or unfit for their home, if they are strict and despotic, student wouldn't be able to adapt to this school.

So, at least in Latvia, it starts with kindergarten environment. If there is enough staff to answer questions in kindergarten and kids don't get "I'm right, because I'm an adult" answers often, then
those kids could fit in a similar school framework.

However, the more "humanistic" it is, the more responsibility young kids, 12-13 year olds, are expected to carry on their own. They are expected to follow their own curriculum, which is school staff approved, but nonetheless made by kids themselves. They are expected to know what interests them and do experiments/projects in small groups and present them to others.


They are expected to be without discipline problems by default. Which means they can't get bored or can't show frustration, because all responsibility is on them to ask for help, to read, to research, to
draw, create and be occupied. Sure, everything is supervised by teachers, but kids are expected to be grown up to the level of maturity of high school/ university students in a sense that there is a lot of self directed learning.

This system is great for kids who are very curious and who have little to none disciplinary problems. Who can concentrate for long periods of time and are not shy to ask for help.

If a kid wants to play video games all day and doesn't care about math/languages/ PE at all, of course, he can't go there, because at the end (9th grade) everyone has to take nationwide exams anyway.

Kids from these schools are usually more creative than others, but it is up to them if they can discipline themselves, because self-motivation is the key. You get grades for work you put into projects
and experiments, not by blindly memorizing facts and formulae.
 
Anyone know what this is trying to say?

20250102_161225.jpg
 
Looks like mental illness
 
It is something to do with wikipdeia in different languages

Spoiler Wikipedia in foreign :
uqN6vwM.png

MPkhvxY.png

D7DJwkY.png

 
Is that Wikipedia in Anglo-Saxon??
 
Æðelwulf is the give-away there, as it's a cognate of the Old Germanic Adalwulf.
 
Listed among languages as Ænglisc (and if you hover, it says Old English).

TIL
 
It wanders into the school of ought and value judgements, the realm of the divine.
I don't think you can really get away from ought in teaching. I think trying to pretend school doesn't have an agenda is more harmful than admitting it.

Humans might be about the only thing actually worth hating on the planet. I might dislike certain insects, or weeds, or storms. But that's all they are. An insect, a weed. They do what they do and don't have much in the way of choice about it. Actual malice, actual evil, actual sadism and will to dominate, those are choices humans make.
Humans are even more malleable than other animals.

If incentives exists to make us more pro-social we will be.

At points in our history the leading cause of male death was violence. Now in places like Japan your chance of being murdered is at the level of being struck by lighting.
 
Well, if there are no choices then whatevs.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom