Imagine 100 randomly selected people. 50 are put in a University Shakespeare class. Attendance marked, reading assigned, reports written, grades given. The other 50 were given the same amount of time to explore Shakespeare on their own. Who do you honestly think learns more?
-
-
I'm not sure "the average person" exists. I think every person needs to be thought of as weird because every person is weird and a system that is designed for the "avg person" is devising an attempt to make us square pegs fit into its round holes.
-
As far as Shakespeare goes, in the long-term I think the second unstructured group would learn more. I'm not so sure I still even remember most of the books I was assigned in lit classes. Except I do remember more vividly books I was able to pick myself.
-
Now maybe that wasn't a great student, but if that ought to disqualify me from reaping the same benefits from my schooling process as my classmates, then school is *de facto* a competition to be the most average
-
Now maybe that's because I wasn't a great student* -- And even though I think the 2nd group would learn more unstructured. I think the people in the first classroom group be better groomed to match society's expectations of youth by the end. (punctual, follows directions, etc)
-
This may be counter intuitive. Maybe we are mistaking the value of school for the wrong thing. Maybe schools are really good at producing people who seem smarter than they really are. Maybe marketing of school is so deeply engraved in our heads we form a natural bias for it. idk
-
I'm done.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.