One of the best reasons to home-school

[mrsajones]

Gosh, I just love this guy....
Here is one of the best reasons why we want to home-school our son when the time comes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq_tcyPV7Vg

[Wake-Up]

I'm not against home schooling, it works for many but a question.

He starts by saying evangelical loose 70-80% of the their students by the end of their Freshman year at college. What does he mean by loosing those children? Do they abandon their faith or not consider themselves evangelical after that point?

Just curios. Are there any stats on how many falter in their faith when home schooled after a year in a public university? Certainly private or Christian colleges may be an answer for those that can afford it but is the assumption that if you have your kids home schooled in the atmosphere you provide they will remain as strong in their faith after a year or two of public university education anyway?

I raised my kids on a very affluent area with excellent public schools. I had neighbors that used the local Catholic HS and some that home schooled. As a group of kids growing up together all the kids ended up doing very well in life. All become professionals, are decent people and from what I can see, are all very good parents themselves now.

While not an absolute, seems the environment the parents raise their kids in, the emphasis on education and morality, may be as critical as the type of schooling they are exposed to. If I lived in a district with lousy schools it may be an option I would have considered.

[MyStageName]

Great video! The "socialization" comment always gets me. I have 2 nieces that have been homeschooled and they are FAR more social than any kid I have ever seen!!

[stereo]

To many Christians, like myself, agree that it is better for children to follow and fear God then be successful businessman/woman. There is much more to life then money. I don't want a successful child that lies, cheats, steals, etc.

[mrsajones]

To many Christians, like myself, agree that it is better for children to follow and fear God then be successful businessman/woman. There is much more to life then money. I don't want a successful child that lies, cheats, steals, etc.

But I believe that parents can do a better job of educating their child than can the state, and Christian parents can raise Christian children up to be successful professionals and still be a faithful Christian. I don't think that being a wealthy professional AND being a Christian are mutually exclusive.

[mrsajones]

I'm not against home schooling, it works for many but a question.

He starts by saying evangelical loose 70-80% of the their students by the end of their Freshman year at college. What does he mean by loosing those children? Do they abandon their faith or not consider themselves evangelical after that point?

Just curios. Are there any stats on how many falter in their faith when home schooled after a year in a public university? Certainly private or Christian colleges may be an answer for those that can afford it but is the assumption that if you have your kids home schooled in the atmosphere you provide they will remain as strong in their faith after a year or two of public university education anyway?

I raised my kids on a very affluent area with excellent public schools. I had neighbors that used the local Catholic HS and some that home schooled. As a group of kids growing up together all the kids ended up doing very well in life. All become professionals, are decent people and from what I can see, are all very good parents themselves now.

While not an absolute, seems the environment the parents raise their kids in, the emphasis on education and morality, may be as critical as the type of schooling they are exposed to. If I lived in a district with lousy schools it may be an option I would have considered.

Yes, I think his point is that Christian parents who home-school their children through elementary and high school then send them to university, that those children will remain strong in their faith because it's been such a focal point of their lives and education....

[mrsajones]

See Cardo's post, "What Is Going In With Schools?" dated 08-14-09.
Another few reasons why it's important to not turn your children over to the state for their "education."

[Greyclouds]

But I believe that parents can do a better job of educating their child than can the state, and Christian parents can raise Christian children up to be successful professionals and still be a faithful Christian. I don't think that being a wealthy professional AND being a Christian are mutually exclusive.

The problem is the illusion of education, though.

Here's what I mean: An Ivy League educated student gets the same basic academic instruction as a non-Ivy League educated student. The Ivy League student is more likely to find a higher-paying job with his/her degree than a non-Ivy League student, based SOLELY on the name of the institution and the perceived esteem of Ivy League students.

Also, the Ivy League schools have name-recognition that non-Ivy League schools do not have.

So, how does this correlate to homeschooling your children through grammar and high school? If they wish to go to college, they will have a harder time getting into higher league accredited schools.

I'm not against homeschooling (so long as you follow CURRENT and ACCEPTED science textbooks), but just keep in mind that Universities tend not to be so liberally minded about such things.

[Greyclouds]

Actually, after some more research, let me clarify my above statement. Homeschooled students DO get accepted to Universities, so long as their aptitude scores (SAT, GRE, etc) are high.

I do NOT see any statistics on homeschooled students being accepted at high rates at the Ivy League universities; however, the lesser-known schools are actually actively recruiting them!

[akarra]

I actually have to disagree here. I'm not saying homeschooling is bad: I think it can work. The students I've worked with who have been homeschooled do well materially, and yes, they stick to their spirituality.

But there's a problem that can't be tracked easily, and it is a huge problem. To say it is "withdrawal from the world" is putting it mildly. At the university I have primarily attended where there have been a significant amount of homeschooled students, the influence of their parents is palpable to the point of being suffocating: you can't really teach any idea they disagree with except in the most abstract way. And nothing you give in terms of career advice - even when you're exactly right - is going to fly; they're listening to their parents the whole time, even at 21-22 when they see the market and its problems better than their parents.

From what I've seen, I've pretty much concluded that conservatism generally has found newer and newer ways to create isolated little communities within itself, while the Left takes over more and more. Again, the homeschooled students do well enough for themselves. They get jobs, they get families, they live their faith and their family ties remain strong.

I would strongly suggest that this is not enough, and that there is an enormous self-absorption that underlies the whole enterprise. I would definitely recommend that homeschoolers take a lot less pride in how they avoided the evil public school system and how evil the government and the material world is and stop and think about the fact that while it doesn't take a village, education itself comes from the world, not God. The moral law is absolute and revealed: one Book is good enough for that. But the decisions you have to make daily - and the people you deal with daily - require another another understanding altogether. I wonder if the reason why Christ doesn't say all that much in the Gospels is because he spent his time listening more than talking; it does not surprise me that most homeschooled students I run into are very, very talkative, or quiet to the point of not being able to ask or share anything.

[mrsajones]

I actually have to disagree here. I'm not saying homeschooling is bad: I think it can work. The students I've worked with who have been homeschooled do well materially, and yes, they stick to their spirituality.

But there's a problem that can't be tracked easily, and it is a huge problem. To say it is "withdrawal from the world" is putting it mildly. At the university I have primarily attended where there have been a significant amount of homeschooled students, the influence of their parents is palpable to the point of being suffocating: you can't really teach any idea they disagree with except in the most abstract way. And nothing you give in terms of career advice - even when you're exactly right - is going to fly; they're listening to their parents the whole time, even at 21-22 when they see the market and its problems better than their parents.

From what I've seen, I've pretty much concluded that conservatism generally has found newer and newer ways to create isolated little communities within itself, while the Left takes over more and more. Again, the homeschooled students do well enough for themselves. They get jobs, they get families, they live their faith and their family ties remain strong.

I would strongly suggest that this is not enough, and that there is an enormous self-absorption that underlies the whole enterprise. I would definitely recommend that homeschoolers take a lot less pride in how they avoided the evil public school system and how evil the government and the material world is and stop and think about the fact that while it doesn't take a village, education itself comes from the world, not God. The moral law is absolute and revealed: one Book is good enough for that. But the decisions you have to make daily - and the people you deal with daily - require another another understanding altogether. I wonder if the reason why Christ doesn't say all that much in the Gospels is because he spent his time listening more than talking; it does not surprise me that most homeschooled students I run into are very, very talkative, or quiet to the point of not being able to ask or share anything.

Not to turn this into a debate about the character of Jesus, but contrary to what you said, He actually did more talking than listening.

I have several friends who do already home-school; the oldest set of kids is a brother and sister, 14 and 12, respectively. I had a birthday party for my son, invited about 35 kids, 70% of them were home-school kids. Honestly, I have to say that the home-schooled children are farther along academically, seem to be above their age level as far as critical thinking skills, and just as importantly, seem to behave much better and were actually just as "socialized" as the other kids.

I hear nothing but negative about the government schools; good news is rare. I know that not all government school teachers are bad (illiterate themselves, or narrow minded leftists) but most are simply union employees. Drive through any government school staff parking lot and count the Obama bumper stickers vs. McCain stickers --- and you know that their politics DO come across in their lessons, and I want to be the one to influence how my son sees the world, not leave it to a bunch of union leftists.

My son is pretty bright (Daddy is a genius), so I'm sure that eventually he'll start to run mental circles around me. At that point, the idea of trying to teach him calculus or Latin does scare me, so I think it'll be off to private Christian school then. But to start out, I'm very confident that I can do a much better job than can the state.

Trying to hook up with Blazer out there for more advice, resources, support groups, etc. I'm getting all the information I can!
:)

[mrsajones]

The problem is the illusion of education, though.

Here's what I mean: An Ivy League educated student gets the same basic academic instruction as a non-Ivy League educated student. The Ivy League student is more likely to find a higher-paying job with his/her degree than a non-Ivy League student, based SOLELY on the name of the institution and the perceived esteem of Ivy League students.

Also, the Ivy League schools have name-recognition that non-Ivy League schools do not have.

So, how does this correlate to homeschooling your children through grammar and high school? If they wish to go to college, they will have a harder time getting into higher league accredited schools.

I'm not against homeschooling (so long as you follow CURRENT and ACCEPTED science textbooks), but just keep in mind that Universities tend not to be so liberally minded about such things.

Actually, I believe that is a myth being told and told by the anti-home-school crowd, right along with "no socialization." I've read that home-schooled children tend to do better on their SATs and other college preparatory work than government-educated kids, graduate earlier, and that in fact, good universities do not look down on a home-schooled high school graduate.

[Wake-Up]

Actually, I believe that is a myth being told and told by the anti-home-school crowd, right along with "no socialization." I've read that home-schooled children tend to do better on their SATs and other college preparatory work than government-educated kids, graduate earlier, and that in fact, good universities do not look down on a home-schooled high school graduate.

I believe you are right about this today. Testing scores, grades, extracurricular activities and even the essay all play into admissions today. Home schooling is more mainstream today than it was a few decades ago.

From my old neighborhood it certainly did not affect those families adversely in getting into top notch schools.

Ivy educations are a bit different than even top tier public schools. Yes the material is basically the same but the pace they go at is faster and volume of work greater as a generalization.

In my experience an Ivy education might not make the most sense for a BS in English for example unless the person is planning on graduate school or a professional program. You have to look at the whole program and student's long term goals.

Good luck. You're thinking way ahead of many with young children and that shows a commitment to education that will well serve your children.

[archangelo]

Actually, I believe that is a myth being told and told by the anti-home-school crowd, right along with "no socialization." I've read that home-schooled children tend to do better on their SATs and other college preparatory work than government-educated kids, graduate earlier, and that in fact, good universities do not look down on a home-schooled high school graduate.

1-Most colleges are what high school used to be.
2-What does college provide, really?
3-"Socialization" = "Getting along with the crowd" usually by being a member of Mediocrity Non-Anonymous.

[Apatriot]

1-Most colleges are what high school used to be.
2-What does college provide, really?
3-"Socialization" = "Getting along with the crowd" usually by being a member of Mediocrity Non-Anonymous.

1. In some fields, not all.
2. Proof that you can stick with something for 4+ yrs. Some basic assumption that you have a certain amount of knowledge.

[Greyclouds]

1-Most colleges are what high school used to be.
2-What does college provide, really?
3-"Socialization" = "Getting along with the crowd" usually by being a member of Mediocrity Non-Anonymous.

1. Sort-of.
2. Networking, specialized instruction, access to educational resources...
3. Or, business networking that ends up paying off later in life.

If you ever wanted to work in the sciences, would you really say such things about college? I can state with experience: no. College was the best thing that ever happened for me in my career and came with such great instruction as to be useful many years down the road. I was a Biology major, btw.

[archangelo]

1. Sort-of.
2. Networking, specialized instruction, access to educational resources...
3. Or, business networking that ends up paying off later in life.

If you ever wanted to work in the sciences, would you really say such things about college? I can state with experience: no. College was the best thing that ever happened for me in my career and came with such great instruction as to be useful many years down the road. I was a Biology major, btw.

Then scientists should go to college. Maybe.

Off the top of my head, I don't believe that any of the following went to, or completed, college (I could be wrong, corrections are welcome!): Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Michael Dell, Bono, Whoopie Goldberg, Dean Kamen, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Millard Fillmore, Martin Van Buren, Zachary Taylor, Harry Truman, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Peter Jennings, John D. Rockefeller, Ty Warner, George Washington, Steve Jobs, H.G. Wells, Paul Allen, John Cormack, Quentin Tarantino.

Of course, these are creative geniuses and individualists. On the other hand, creative genius and individuality are not exactly encouraged in the school system right up through college, which leaves one to wonder if their genius made college unnecessary, or if the lack of college contributed to their genius.

Not all networking opportunities and access to resources and instruction are limited to those who attend college. Yes, colleges make access easier to the less-motivated, but those who are already motivated have no need for the facilitation that colleges promote or provide. They already know where to go, or where to search.

[Greyclouds]

Then scientists should go to college. Maybe.

They have to. There are no other organized institutions that will take the time and money (8-9+ years) to give adequate training to a scientist.


Off the top of my head, I don't believe that any of the following went to, or completed, college (I could be wrong, corrections are welcome!): Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Michael Dell, Bono, Whoopie Goldberg, Dean Kamen, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Millard Fillmore, Martin Van Buren, Zachary Taylor, Harry Truman, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Peter Jennings, John D. Rockefeller, Ty Warner, George Washington, Steve Jobs, H.G. Wells, Paul Allen, John Cormack, Quentin Tarantino.

The founding fathers would not have gone to college because most colleges were seminaries back then.

Alot of current personalities that did not go to college are the exception to the rule and made smart business decisions.

The average person earns at least $20k more a year with a college degree than with simply a high school degree; that's the natural bias against non-college graduates displayed by private businesses.


Of course, these are creative geniuses and individualists. On the other hand, creative genius and individuality are not exactly encouraged in the school system right up through college, which leaves one to wonder if their genius made college unnecessary, or if the lack of college contributed to their genius.

Not all networking opportunities and access to resources and instruction are limited to those who attend college. Yes, colleges make access easier to the less-motivated, but those who are already motivated have no need for the facilitation that colleges promote or provide. They already know where to go, or where to search.

Intellectual collectives are necessary for some human pursuits and not for others. If you're basing a disdain for college off of some selective personalities, then I'm not sure if I could ever convince you that advanced formal education is necessary for some career paths.

[mrsajones]

They have to. There are no other organized institutions that will take the time and money (8-9+ years) to give adequate training to a scientist.



The founding fathers would not have gone to college because most colleges were seminaries back then.

Alot of current personalities that did not go to college are the exception to the rule and made smart business decisions.

The average person earns at least $20k more a year with a college degree than with simply a high school degree; that's the natural bias against non-college graduates displayed by private businesses.



Intellectual collectives are necessary for some human pursuits and not for others. If you're basing a disdain for college off of some selective personalities, then I'm not sure if I could ever convince you that advanced formal education is necessary for some career paths.

Well, contrary to revisionist history, our founders were Christians, even Ben Franklin and Thom Jefferson, were NOT deists. Anyway, yep, 52 of the signers were seminary graduates, including the founder of Princeton University.
Yeah, Ben Franklin insisted on hour long prayer meetings, and Thomas Jefferson was the 1st President to start the Congressional Chapel, attended every Sunday, spent tax payer dollars to fund Christian missionaries, and signed his documents, "In the Name of the Holy Trinity and Our Lord Christ." Check out the original documents at wallbuilders.com.
:)

[archangelo]

They have to. There are no other organized institutions that will take the time and money (8-9+ years) to give adequate training to a scientist.


Do college students learn more science in college than, as scientists, they learn from other scientists after college?


The founding fathers would not have gone to college because most colleges were seminaries back then.


As far as I know, about half of the founders went to college in the colonies (Harvard, William & Mary, etc.) or abroad. The other half had private tutors or were self-taught.


A lot of current personalities that did not go to college are the exception to the rule and made smart business decisions.


But why are they the exception to the rule? Could it be that their "smart business decision" was to avoid college where the principles of compliance and uniformity are extended from their schooling as children?

The average person earns at least $20k more a year with a college degree than with simply a high school degree; that's the natural bias against non-college graduates displayed by private businesses.

Couldn't the fact that big business rewards those who go through the cookie cutter system indicate, not greater success for the individual, but an acknowledgment that the individual has allowed the system to succeed?


Intellectual collectives are necessary for some human pursuits and not for others. If you're basing a disdain for college off of some selective personalities, then I'm not sure if I could ever convince you that advanced formal education is necessary for some career paths.

Being a person with three masters degrees, I do not doubt that there are some fields for which higher education would be of benefit. I simply think the American "education" system as a whole is not clearly understood for what it is, one result being that too much importance is placed on its "benefits." I strongly believe that the current idea that college be available to all is simply a cover for schooling -- which is not the same as education -- to continue after high school so as to further ensure its effects on the population.

[Greyclouds]

Well, contrary to revisionist history, our founders were Christians, even Ben Franklin and Thom Jefferson, were NOT deists. Anyway, yep, 52 of the signers were seminary graduates, including the founder of Princeton University.

Actually, THIS is revisionist history, insofar as Thomas Jefferson was NOT a Christian in the sense that he did not believe in Jesus' miraculous ministry. He was a "Christian" insofar as one respects the LESSONS of Jesus and NOT the miracles attributed to him (which Jefferson himself believed to be childish insertions by people after Jesus' life and death).

You ever hear of the Jefferson Bible? No mention of the resurrection or angelic birth of Jesus; just his parables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

His ACTUAL quotes are quite damning:

"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

Quotes taken from: http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm


Yeah, Ben Franklin insisted on hour long prayer meetings, and Thomas Jefferson was the 1st President to start the Congressional Chapel, attended every Sunday, spent tax payer dollars to fund Christian missionaries, and signed his documents, "In the Name of the Holy Trinity and Our Lord Christ." Check out the original documents at wallbuilders.com.
:)

I find that very hard to believe, especially since Thomas Jefferson was a UNITARIAN. He did NOT believe in the trinity.

[Greyclouds]

Do college students learn more science in college than, as scientists, they learn from other scientists after college?

The base level of knowledge to conduct biological experiments can only be granted by several years of specialized classes devoted to the current body of scientific knowledge. That is an absolute fact, and I stand behind that statement 100%.

It's the reason why I can tell you the intricacies of nucleophilic attack (Organic Chemistry) on the imposition of mobile genetic elements (Recombinant DNA Technology) on statistically random (Statistics) nucleotide motifs throughout a genome (Genetics).


As far as I know, about half of the founders went to college in the colonies (Harvard, William & Mary, etc.) or abroad. The other half had private tutors or were self-taught.

Yes, but you must understand that many colleges were designed to train Ministers.


But why are they the exception to the rule? Could it be that their "smart business decision" was to avoid college where the principles of compliance and uniformity are extended from their schooling as children?

They are the exception to the rule simply based on numerical data. The grand majority of college drop-outs earn far less than their diploma wielding brethren.

Whether that is a function of the fact that most college drop-outs have generally low executive ability (the ability to carry out tasks and functions) and not due to the fact that college would better prepare them for work is up for debate. Your postulate that compliance and uniformity imposed by colleges (which is somewhat not founded in reality; have you been to college recently??) actually hurts students seems less likely due to the fact that the majority of college graduates earn higher than their non-college friends.


Couldn't the fact that big business rewards those who go through the cookie cutter system indicate, not greater success for the individual, but an acknowledgment that the individual has allowed the system to succeed?

Well, then, all education is cookie-cutter! I don't see how you can place a demarcation solely at college and then claim that college is the only cookie-cutter system... especially since college is the first area of education where you can actually SPECIALIZE your learning objectives. The student's degree is based on the student's own decisions.


Being a person with three masters degrees, I do not doubt that there are some fields for which higher education would be of benefit. I simply think the American "education" system as a whole is not clearly understood for what it is, one result being that too much importance is placed on its "benefits." I strongly believe that the current idea that college be available to all is simply a cover for schooling -- which is not the same as education -- to continue after high school so as to further ensure its effects on the population.

I personally believe that the difference in "schooling" and "education" is a result of a STUDENT's aptitude and executive ability.

College is a resource. If you make use of that resource, you can easily find a treasure-trove of information and connections. If you do not make full use of your time in College, then yes, you're simply going through the motions and not getting your money's worth out of the university.

Also, people are not forced to go to college... I know several people in my high school class who did not attend college. Only one runs his own networking company; the rest earn minimum wage or slightly higher.

[Apatriot]

Do college students learn more science in college than, as scientists, they learn from other scientists after college?

Is graduate school part of college?

If not, then, most learn more about a very small area of science in grad school. In grad school in science, you specialize and learn everything there is to know about a very minor part of science. I would say that I learned more general science in college, and then more specialized in grad school.

[Greyclouds]

Is graduate school part of college?

If not, then, most learn more about a very small area of science in grad school. In grad school in science, you specialize and learn everything there is to know about a very minor part of science. I would say that I learned more general science in college, and then more specialized in grad school.

100% correct. Cannot add any more to your summary.

[Safiel]

Just the fact that he wrote the "Jefferson Bible" is damning to any claim that he was a Christian, in the modern sense of that term. Christian = saved by grace, baptism, yada, yada, etc. While he certainly thought well enough of Jesus's parables, he certainly disbelieved the paranormal aspects.

I think Jefferson was either Unitarian or Deist. He was certainly no Christian. And if he was alive today and dared to make such an edit of the Bible, methinks the Hagee's and Robertson's of the world would be calling for his head on a pike. :)

[RWReaganfan]

and you know that their politics DO come across in their lessons,[/COLOR] and I want to be the one to influence how my son sees the world, not leave it to a bunch of union leftists.

:)

(Sarcasm on) You are absolutely right! My politics definitely come out in my lessons when I am teaching long division or how to find the area of a triangle. (Sarcasm off)

You could not be more wrong. Teachers are union members primarily to keep from from being railroaded by incompetent adminstrators. There are a vast number of Republican cars in the parking lots, but we prefer not getting our cars vandalized by liberals.

[pubschteacher]

Well, contrary to revisionist history, our founders were Christians, even Ben Franklin and Thom Jefferson, were NOT deists. Anyway, yep, 52 of the signers were seminary graduates, including the founder of Princeton University.

Well, given that most of the finest institutions of higher learning at the time (Harvard, Yale, etc.) were founded as orthodox Christian seminaries, you can say that many of the Founders had graduated with some religious training, maybe even a degree in divinity. John Witherspoon was the only actual practicing clergyman.
52? Citation please...
otherwise, this is just your version of revisionist history

As far as Jefferson, we can trade quotes all day if you like, but how do you explain this

The university of Virginia was founded by... Thomas Jefferson.

From the UVA website

The University of Virginia was founded as a secular university, with no religious affiliation or denominational identity. In contrast, Georgia, UNC, South Carolina, Vermont, Blount College (which became the University of Tennessee), and others chartered as state universities had denominational sponsorship.

Chapel attendance was not required of students at the University of Virginia. Other universities, public and private, required their students to attend church services. In fact, Harvard did not do away with the chapel requirement until late in the 19th century.

Doesn't that seem odd, considering your contention?

I look forward to the citation of the 52 signers and their divinity degrees...

[archangelo]

The base level of knowledge to conduct biological experiments can only be granted by several years of specialized classes devoted to the current body of scientific knowledge. That is an absolute fact, and I stand behind that statement 100%.

It's the reason why I can tell you the intricacies of nucleophilic attack (Organic Chemistry) on the imposition of mobile genetic elements (Recombinant DNA Technology) on statistically random (Statistics) nucleotide motifs throughout a genome (Genetics).

I don't doubt that there is a huge amount of knowledge to be learned in a college science program. It seems to me that if science is a field of "discover," one would hope to learn more during a lifetime of practicing it than during 4-6 years of acquiring a foundation in it. In my experience, what a person learns by observation, imitation, and practice far outweighs that which is gained merely in the classroom.



Yes, but you must understand that many colleges were designed to train Ministers.


Most college programs are designed to offer a sum of the knowledge and skills to enable a person to enter a specific field or fields. That doesn't mean that everyone person who goes through a particular program, even to completion, actually enters that field. I believe there was only one minister in the Congress on July 4, 1776. I know I certainly don't toil in all five fields for which I have been trained! :lol:


They are the exception to the rule simply based on numerical data. The grand majority of college drop-outs earn far less than their diploma wielding brethren.

Whether that is a function of the fact that most college drop-outs have generally low executive ability (the ability to carry out tasks and functions) and not due to the fact that college would better prepare them for work is up for debate. Your postulate that compliance and uniformity imposed by colleges (which is somewhat not founded in reality; have you been to college recently??) actually hurts students seems less likely due to the fact that the majority of college graduates earn higher than their non-college friends.



Well, then, all education is cookie-cutter! I don't see how you can place a demarcation solely at college and then claim that college is the only cookie-cutter system... especially since college is the first area of education where you can actually SPECIALIZE your learning objectives. The student's degree is based on the student's own decisions. [/quote]

The cookie-cutting begins in Pre-Kindergarten, and those first 12 years of schooling is exactly what creates the situation of compliance, uniformity, and low achievement which you describe. It's no wonder it continues into college which, I agree, should be different but is increasingly less so. The American spirit which built this country without compelled government schooling, or a myriad of colleges, has been crushed by the self-described "public education" system, whose real goal is to form a economically classed populace that is manageable, defines itself by the stuff it owns, and evaluates success in degrees of pleasure, comfort, and safety.



I personally believe that the difference in "schooling" and "education" is a result of a STUDENT's aptitude and executive ability.


I agree. Ultimately, we are self-educated. Schooling opposes this, discourages this, and works to disable this.


College is a resource. If you make use of that resource, you can easily find a treasure-trove of information and connections. If you do not make full use of your time in College, then yes, you're simply going through the motions and not getting your money's worth out of the university.

Also, people are not forced to go to college... I know several people in my high school class who did not attend college. Only one runs his own networking company; the rest earn minimum wage or slightly higher.

Perhaps we travel in different circles, but the college grads among my family, friends, and colleagues are generally the least fulfilled and most frightened folks I know. They may make a few dollars more and live in bigger houses; that doesn't seem to be a sufficient measure of success. On the other hand, I know quite a number of people without a college degree who are entrepreneurs, most struggling to grow their businesses, but all numbering among the most confident and satisfied people I have ever known.

I suspect it all has something to do with controlling your own life, being self-sufficient. being most human. Dependence, which is a hallmark of schooling, creates cogs which, no matter how big and of what metal, are still parts of a machine. I am still reluctant to cave into the idea that making loads of money is my purpose in life. But I have found that the more I am willing and confident enough to take the reins of my own life, the less I have to worry about money -- the less I "need" it, the more appears. Sometimes like a little demon set on temptation...:mrgreen:

[educ8er]

I tried this back in the early 80s with my oldest son. I did not have a stay at home wife. My wife worked when we married and still today. I guess it depends on priorities, but none-the-less we have two sons making their own way in life.

[Greyclouds]

I don't doubt that there is a huge amount of knowledge to be learned in a college science program. It seems to me that if science is a field of "discover," one would hope to learn more during a lifetime of practicing it than during 4-6 years of acquiring a foundation in it. In my experience, what a person learns by observation, imitation, and practice far outweighs that which is gained merely in the classroom.

Which is why Grad school for a life science field is typically two years of partial classes and three+ years of research. It's not ALL learning, but you need a huge base of knowledge to begin your research!



The cookie-cutting begins in Pre-Kindergarten, and those first 12 years of schooling is exactly what creates the situation of compliance, uniformity, and low achievement which you describe. It's no wonder it continues into college which, I agree, should be different but is increasingly less so. The American spirit which built this country without compelled government schooling, or a myriad of colleges, has been crushed by the self-described "public education" system, whose real goal is to form a economically classed populace that is manageable, defines itself by the stuff it owns, and evaluates success in degrees of pleasure, comfort, and safety.

I simply do not see a viable alternative to teaching our children base necessities of mathematics, social studies and literature. We must incorporate discipline into learning.

A vacuum of discipline DOES result in more creativity, but the lack of discipline ensures that the student never gets a base of knowledge to be creative on a higher level of discourse.


I agree. Ultimately, we are self-educated. Schooling opposes this, discourages this, and works to disable this.

The majority of our knowledge base comes from self-education, but what about the initial forays? Where do you begin to research if you're illiterate?


Perhaps we travel in different circles, but the college grads among my family, friends, and colleagues are generally the least fulfilled and most frightened folks I know. They may make a few dollars more and live in bigger houses; that doesn't seem to be a sufficient measure of success. On the other hand, I know quite a number of people without a college degree who are entrepreneurs, most struggling to grow their businesses, but all numbering among the most confident and satisfied people I have ever known.

I suspect it all has something to do with controlling your own life, being self-sufficient. being most human. Dependence, which is a hallmark of schooling, creates cogs which, no matter how big and of what metal, are still parts of a machine. I am still reluctant to cave into the idea that making loads of money is my purpose in life. But I have found that the more I am willing and confident enough to take the reins of my own life, the less I have to worry about money -- the less I "need" it, the more appears. Sometimes like a little demon set on temptation...:mrgreen:

This is an interesting point, but is the discipline vested in schooling really the cause of a lack of self-esteem and self-confidence?

It all depends on the individual. I can tell you that my own lack of self-confidence is not resultant from being forced to sit in a classroom for an hour three times a week to learn about Biology, rather it is due to social situations dealing with rather selfish people. In fact, a major source of self-confidence for me was the completion of a VERY guided research project in my undergraduate years. So, again, it varies from person to person.

I feel I'm a much better person for the discipline and knowledge that formal education has provided to me.

[mrsajones]

(Sarcasm on) You are absolutely right! My politics definitely come out in my lessons when I am teaching long division or how to find the area of a triangle. (Sarcasm off)

You could not be more wrong. Teachers are union members primarily to keep from from being railroaded by incompetent adminstrators. There are a vast number of Republican cars in the parking lots, but we prefer not getting our cars vandalized by liberals.

:))
Touche'