Lies that taught us in schools

[butt3rfly_s0up]

Get a good job so you can make more money, they said. There's a reason why financial literacy is almost ALWAYS discovered and learned outside school.

People need to learn that life's at its best when money works for you (be it primarily or on the side), and not you purely working for money.

reminds me of: 'live to work or work to live' (ironically this was shown to me at school)

 

[Pangolin]

They fill your head with useless facts and figures but never anything to do with it or any way to gain a useful skill.

 

[RealTomCruise]

There is no greater way to kill an interest in history through memorization of dates and emphasis on only the most minute details instead of looking at the greater picture. Where I grew up the only type of education you received on history in elementary school was about the native tribes that used to cover North America and a very small amount about how ebil the first settlers were. By the time I made it into grade 6 we had a first unit on European subject matter about ancient Athens. The only emphasis was that although they had a direct democracy, it was subpar to ours because only male landowners could take part. Going into high school was much of the same, extremely shallow details about specific aspects only with the addition of needing to memorize the specific dates when events happened. Regardless, the lack of decent education in history ended up making me have a greater passion in trying to read on history and related philosophy on my own time. I've found english and STEM subjects pretty comprehensive where I've gone to school, only social is sorely lacking.

 

[Descarte Yee]

It's a glorified day care center.

 

[SolidStateSurvivor]

There is no greater way to kill an interest in history through memorization of dates and emphasis on only the most minute details instead of looking at the greater picture. Where I grew up the only type of education you received on history in elementary school was about the native tribes that used to cover North America and a very small amount about how ebil the first settlers were. By the time I made it into grade 6 we had a first unit on European subject matter about ancient Athens. The only emphasis was that although they had a direct democracy, it was subpar to ours because only male landowners could take part. Going into high school was much of the same, extremely shallow details about specific aspects only with the addition of needing to memorize the specific dates when events happened. Regardless, the lack of decent education in history ended up making me have a greater passion in trying to read on history and related philosophy on my own time. I've found english and STEM subjects pretty comprehensive where I've gone to school, only social is sorely lacking.

As someone who majored in history I can assure you going into STEM is the better choice when it comes to career prospects lol. Academic history differs greatly from what primary school offers, as it is more about the means and methods of interpreting it, backing up said interpretation with primary/secondary sources. The exams are more about "why was [historical event] important" rather than "tell me when [historical event] happened and what the text book said happened?"

At the end of the day the public education system's main purpose is to produce semi competent citizens to fill jobs and pay taxes (no shit right?) While history is not necessary for the job aspect, it is necessary in fostering a cohesive/cooperative population of citizens. You need something that can keep them united, something that keeps them loyal to the ideals of the nation, this is especially important come periods of war. Cynically you can point to this and say it is a form of conditioning to ensure loyalty to the nation. Something that when politicians invoke a surface level reference to past events, you can understand the rhetoric and agree with it.

While the notion of American exceptionalism has it's flaws, for the purpose of furthering the education system's end goal and fostering a successful/united nation, playing into aspects of it is necessary. The issue I take with the current state of history's curriculum is that the shift has been towards increased division/animosity rather than unification. Identity politics have become all the rage, it's why critical race theory and the 1619 project are so contested. It is one thing to be critical of the past and learn from it for a better future, but it is another to guilt trip and stoke animosity for the present. Our interpretation of the past is integral to the foundation of the future, and currently what they are trying to preach in the educational system does not strike me as optimistic.

A more productive method of doing this is to play into the narrative of upwards mobility through hard work. For instance, teach a curriculum based around a diverse group of individuals in different eras of US history. You can adequately explain the context of the period and the prejudice certain individuals faced and highlight the ingenuity that propelled them to success without resorting to just guilting people/groups for oppression.

There are other factors that are messing with the curriculum overall. The curriculums/textbooks are tailored primarily to the two biggest markets: Texas and California. Elites like Bill Gates have also tossed a fair amount of money at the public education system in an attempt to sway the curriculum.

Of course I prefer history to be open to interpretation based on analyzing the sources, but from purely a nation building standpoint I am not sure how effective or plausible this would be. Most people view history as set in stone and unchanging, it would be hard to break that perception among the general population.

 

[LostintheCycle]

That the point of reading a book is to shove your head up your ass searching for analysis of the themes of the book and to apply analysis lens (feminist, post-colonial, etc) so you can extract the authors super duper secret messages, typically ones such as 'colonialism is bad' and 'feminism is good'.

Where I grew up the only type of education you received on history in elementary school was about the native tribes that used to cover North America and a very small amount about how ebil the first settlers were. By the time I made it into grade 6 we had a first unit on European subject matter about ancient Athens. The only emphasis was that although they had a direct democracy, it was subpar to ours because only male landowners could take part.

In Australia we have the same thing, except they continue the education about how evil the white invaders were all the way through high school, with a few breaks to pay lip service to the two world wars, and maybe Egyptians or whatever.
They teach that Australian Aboriginals were peaceful, nomadic hunter-gathers, and were essentially a monoculture. They obviously weren't all the same, it's dubious that these people would have always been nomadic for tens of thousands of years and never played with agriculture, and that all of them believed in Dreamtime stuff. They don't care because the goal is to make the students feel sorry for these people, not to understand them.

 

[Jade]

They teach that Australian Aboriginals were peaceful, nomadic hunter-gathers, and were essentially a monoculture.

lmaooooo the australian aboriginal groups are farther removed from each other than Swedes are from Arabs. Most of their language are ZERO percent related, meaning that their cultures diverged from each other so far back that the original proto-language can no longer be constructed through the comparative method

 

[Steingar]

A lot of negativity in this thread so I'm just going to throw my two cents in and gives my thoughts in a very general sense.

The philosophical basis of schooling derives from two camps; one is that school should prepare kids for the workforce (as pushed by late 19th century Plutocrats) and the other that it should gives the minimum education education required to be able to operate as well rounded citizens capable of engaging with civil and intellectual discourse (one pushed by Enlightenment ideals).

No matter which route a school takes, there's going to be backlash. Lean too hard into practical skills and it's "oh it's just teaching kinds to be wage cucks". Lean too hard into the theoretical learning and it's "oh school doesn't teach kids REAL skills like how to do tax forms". Most school systems try to find a balance between the two and leave the ultimate route taken up to graduate education.

Despite the issues with schooling, I think you'd have to be deeply cynical or extremely short sighted to say universal public education had been a bad thing. People today are far more educated and literate than any period in history; imagine living in a society where 90% of people can't read or count past 10 and tell me that's a good thing. Sure we can wax lyrical about failures in the education system and the innate idiocy of people, but education can only do as well as the people it's working on.

As far as the "makes you a wagie cuck" argument goes, that's a problem much less with education and far more with capitalism in general. Education ultimately will serve what's seen as the most useful path one can take in life; that's why we have coding classes today and not machining classes. If you hate the school-to-work pipeline, go try the no-school-to-labouring-in-a-field pipeline that millions of kids are still doing in developing countries today and then ask yourself why so many people are fighting to get an education all over the world. I'm not saying its a good thing, but people do what they need to do to survive in a world that doesn't give a shit, and schooling allows that.

As for the "theoretical learning" and propoganda side of things...well what do you want me to say? Show me any video, text, or piece of media that doesn't implicitly push an agenda. You're never going to be able to read a text of receive intellectual instruction that doesn't have some flavour of ill-intent built into it: that's what critical thinking and being able to assess things on their merit in a broader context is all about. And I know some of you are REALLY going to hate me saying this, but I really think school and education, at least in a lot of Western countries, does a pretty good job of teaching critical thinking skills, at least relative to education in somewhere like China or no education whatsoever.

So I guess to summarise: school is a flawed but necessary institution for teaching as many people as wide an education as possible. Is it's "shoving 30 kids in a classroom and rote teaching them maths" approach deeply flawed? Sure, and we need to iterate and improve on that, but as someone who is the beneficiary of a system that taught me maths, history, literature, as well as how to critically analyse a piece of work and reach my own conclusions, I can't outright say "This system is the worst, it's fed me lies, I hate it". Cause the alternative imo is so much worse.

 

[napata]

The problem from my experience is what they did not teach rather than what they did teach. I majored in Architecture school with 0 prior experience with the field (just felt like it's a good path to take, you know highschooler's mindset). I'm not quite sure how other design major/schools are structured, but usually architecture school's curriculum is majorly dominated by a class called "Design Studio." They expect us to go in-depth with the design aspects, the 'philosophy' spatial awareness, and whatever architect aspects that they feel like to integrate, regardless of our basic knowledge. Because of how big portion this class takes, the values of other classes are drastically diminished in terms of time and mental investment. The classes about structural principles or history and development that teach the practical and theorical context, get pushed aside, because students barely have anytime left to work on them. So, if the knowledge/skills are not self-taught, most of the students go into the design studio blinded, lacking skills and foundation for the field. Personally, most of the hard skills, I learned them all through youtube. I spent 4 years without gaining proper understanding of building codes, construction process, materials, and so on.

I understand that they intended to make the students be ready for postgraduate program, not to get into the profession, but I am not willing to invest any more money and time to a field that is not exactly my passion. I got my first architect job and right away knew that I was not ready for this at all. Yes, I know how to design, but as a junior position, I was required to do the tedious work of CAD drawings, building 3-D models, and such. I did not have sufficient knowledge about structural design (how thick or how far apart things should be). I learned a lot as I work but, it was kind of annoying knowing that they could have taught me these in the school. Anyway, I changed my profession after a while, because I got so burnt out with it.

Know I think about it, I want to talk more about the professors' ego circle jerk, might make a thread about it later.

TLDR; i didnt learn shit after 4 years in college, and learned shit loads more from youtube lmao

 

[LostintheCycle]

No matter which route a school takes, there's going to be backlash. Lean too hard into practical skills and it's "oh it's just teaching kinds to be wage cucks". Lean too hard into the theoretical learning and it's "oh school doesn't teach kids REAL skills like how to do tax forms". Most school systems try to find a balance between the two and leave the ultimate route taken up to graduate education.

What the hell kind of school did you go to? My school wasn't practical or theoretical, it was just babysitting and exam preparation.
Aus high schools have heavy incentives to shove kids into universities even if it's not what they want or need. They don't give a shit about giving the kids anything except a good score, which is only because it benefits themselves. This is the public system, I imagine the private system is the same as well.

 

[Steingar]

What the hell kind of school did you go to? My school wasn't practical or theoretical, it was just babysitting and exam preparation.
Aus high schools have heavy incentives to shove kids into universities even if it's not what they want or need. They don't give a shit about giving the kids anything except a good score, which is only because it benefits themselves. This is the public system, I imagine the private system is the same as well.

Awks cause I went to a public HS in Australia as well. It wasn't an especially good one (it was in rural NSW) but it had teachers that gave a damn and really tried to give us students interesting assignments or challenge our critical thinking skills.

I wanna stress that not all teachers were like that (maybe 30% only), but I disagree that Aus schools are on a uni pipeline. Although it is true that kids are discouraged from leaving before they get their HSC certificate, I think that's mostly politicians trying to keep the youth unemployment numbers down. In actual fact at least 20% of my year quit school around 16 to go do an apprenticeship.

And on the uni pipeline question, is it the schools fault that almost every salaried job in society requires a uni degree now, even for jobs that absolutely don't need it? (marketing, business, even nursing arguably).

But idk I was definitely a goodie two shoes type student who did go on to university, so maybe I'm more charitable to the schooling system because of that.

 

[LostintheCycle]

Awks cause I went to a public HS in Australia as well. It wasn't an especially good one (it was in rural NSW) but it had teachers that gave a damn and really tried to give us students interesting assignments or challenge our critical thinking skills.

I wanna stress that not all teachers were like that (maybe 30% only), but I disagree that Aus schools are on a uni pipeline. Although it is true that kids are discouraged from leaving before they get their HSC certificate, I think that's mostly politicians trying to keep the youth unemployment numbers down. In actual fact at least 20% of my year quit school around 16 to go do an apprenticeship.

And on the uni pipeline question, is it the schools fault that almost every salaried job in society requires a uni degree now, even for jobs that absolutely don't need it? (marketing, business, even nursing arguably).

But idk I was definitely a goodie two shoes type student who did go on to university, so maybe I'm more charitable to the schooling system because of that.

Knowing you are Australian, I am astounded that you can be charitable whatsoever to our education system. I guess you were just very lucky, had teachers who were good (I can only think of one such kind of teacher, which made up a third of your teachers). I came from a public high school in a suburb of Victoria. Maybe the experience rural is just wildly different. Might also depend on time, I'm curious when did you graduate?
You know that schools receive money based on how many students they put into university? There is an actual incentive structure to put students in there regardless of whether they want/need to go. That and many other things makes up the pipeline, like the recent deprecation of VCAL, and the intense focus on the ATAR, a number only useful for entering university. No employer ever wants to know what your ATAR is, because they know it's just a measure of your ability to take the exam.
There is a pipeline, and it's not for the benefit of the student, but for the benefit of the schools.

 

[Steingar]

Knowing you are Australian, I am astounded that you can be charitable whatsoever to our education system. I guess you were just very lucky, had teachers who were good (I can only think of one such kind of teacher, which made up a third of your teachers). I came from a public high school in a suburb of Victoria. Maybe the experience rural is just wildly different. Might also depend on time, I'm curious when did you graduate?
You know that schools receive money based on how many students they put into university? There is an actual incentive structure to put students in there regardless of whether they want/need to go. That and many other things makes up the pipeline, like the recent deprecation of VCAL, and the intense focus on the ATAR, a number only useful for entering university. No employer ever wants to know what your ATAR is, because they know it's just a measure of your ability to take the exam.
There is a pipeline, and it's not for the benefit of the student, but for the benefit of the schools.

I guess I'm charitable more in a relative sense than an absolute sense. I've lived in other countries and met other people there who either 1) Struggled just to get an education (think Pakistani girls married off at age 12) or; 2) Went through a system that was way more cruel, rote learning based, and uni-pipeliney than what we have (think Korea, China, Taiwan, etc.). In the broader context of that, combined with the fact that my schooling really wasn't that bad, and I think you can see where my perhaps more generous perspective comes from.

I myself graduated HS in 2013. I can't comment on the impact my school being rural had on my experience. To me it was a net negative (not a lot of resources). But by the same token, it's possible that because no one really gave a shit about % getting into uni the teachers were able to dedicate more time to enjoyable class structures and discussion.

This is not in any way to assert that we weren't forced to chase good ATARs or worked to the bone in our final years. But in the context of the total 12 years or schooling and compared to the horror stories of something like the gaokao, I usually give the last 2 years a slide even though I agree they weren't very fun.

As for this:

You know that schools receive money based on how many students they put into university?

No, I'm afraid I didn't know that. Can you share a resource that talks about that? I've had a search online and all I've come up with us this:

"...the amount of money private schools get from the Commonwealth is based on the capacity of parents to pay for their children's education, that amount is based on students' addresses — which comes down to their socioeconomic status. That system has been in place since 2001."

and...

"...the Commonwealth government decides how much money each school should get, it doesn't get to decide how much actually goes to each school. The Commonwealth gives the total amount to the state and territory governments and organisations like the Catholic education system — which then distribute the money to individual schools. Those systems do not have to follow the Federal Government's defined amount that goes to each school, they just need to distribute the money on a "needs basis" according to their own formulas."

From here.

Not saying you're wrong, but if you could share more info on the subject that'd be great.

 

[Drifter]

I've bounced around a bunch of different education systems, and from the ones I've done, IB the best. I was only there for middle school, but most of the classes were genuinely engaging and made me reconsider things. As someone who also went to an Aussie public school, they're a mixed bag. I think like all schools it depends a lot on who your teachers are, and I had the good luck of having mostly decent teachers with a couple good ones and only a few bad ones. The actual ATAR system is pretty shit though, it does just seem like a uni pipeline, and its probably not even an especially good method of selecting for uni (I've heard that private school kids get crazy high ATARs then struggle really hard in first year uni). Ignoring the systemic issues with the ATAR, lot of the quality of education again comes back to teachers and the quality of their skills and interest, which I think suffers from the general lack of respect for the teaching proffesion, they are underpaid and not respected. If society treated teachers the way they treat doctors, or lawyers, I think we'd see a different, probably better system. But that won't happen because it's too expensive and there's probably no profit motive. I definitely agree that the Australian system isn't the worst, and education in general is pretty hard to get right, but it's definitely not perfect.

 

[LostintheCycle]

I guess I'm charitable more in a relative sense than an absolute sense. I've lived in other countries and met other people there who either 1) Struggled just to get an education (think Pakistani girls married off at age 12) or; 2) Went through a system that was way more cruel, rote learning based, and uni-pipeliney than what we have (think Korea, China, Taiwan, etc.). In the broader context of that, combined with the fact that my schooling really wasn't that bad, and I think you can see where my perhaps more generous perspective comes from.

No doubt that what we have here is better than a lot of places, yet it's still so far off the mark of what education could be.
My own perspective is very negative. I didn't learn anything in secondary school except for algebra. Besides that it was a huge waste of my six years, and I hate it for that. It could do so much better in so many ways, that it just doesn't because it's tied up.
There again it could just be that I went to two really bad high schools.

No, I'm afraid I didn't know that. Can you share a resource that talks about that?

I didn't read it, I was told this by someone I knew who was studying to become a teacher for some time, which was corroborated by a different person who actually was a teacher here.

I myself graduated HS in 2013.

Yeah, I think the school experience was different then. I don't have much backing this particular idea up other than a hunch, and no amount of data could answer this question. I did want to interview various teachers who have been in teaching for a decent amount of time, I planned out some questions I'd ask but the amount of time this project would take would be too great. But now I'm thinking about it again, and maybe it's worth doing some digging.

 

[Some_porcupine]

system is the worst, it's fed me lies, I hate it". Cause the alternative imo is so much worse.

what about Waldorff tho?

*wait: got it, if you educate w/o morals, principles, riules - there would be mass of spoiled punky kids who respect no one and does what they want, emotionless, getting what they want in whatever means possible; "thru dead (people)"(?)... and that happens.
there is school for "exceptional children". rumors say they are spoiled - like that^. one of kids became shooter at gay bar, second one burned that school down. discord should be clue, someone said, in the comments, news saying all that...

 

[manpaint]

I dislike how there is a big push to go into very "high class" studies that end up giving you limited job opportunities and massive debt. Thankfully the domain I wanted to work in was just a 1 year class so I avoided that class entirely. Many people of my age did fell through that trap and ended up making a U-turn as they realized the bullshit. Most insidious is how the gouvernement charges you for chancelling your studies (giving you motre debt).

 

[handoferis]

Real thing I legitimately hated about school (STEM specifically): The thing where they would teach you something so oversimplified so as to be flat-out wrong one year, then the following year be like "oh by the way, that was all bullshit, this is how it really is" - only to do it again the year after.

Fuck off, just teach properly from the start and say *outright* that what you're teaching is a gross oversimplification. Don't teach it like it's the truth and then pull the rug out from under people later on. This is why people who left school early or didn't pay attention (when they really needed to) just have cripplingly dumbfuck interpretations of what reality is, because the last thing they were told was total horseshit. What's the point of forcing all the kiddos into schools if you're just gonna teach them shit you know is wrong?

ofc when I first encountered this, I just got online and looked shit up properly, then promptly checked out of paying attention to school until I could leave - but if people aren't that way inclined, they can just come out of KidPrison™ knowing a load of gobshite drivel.

 

[starbreaker]

School is just publicly funded daycare, and it isn't even run properly since it lets kids out before the parents finish working for the day. They practice Potemkin academics; it's all for show and any learning that happens is by accident. They don't even provide the social skills that are cited as a benefit of going to school versus being homeschooled. There are plenty of people with social skills that would embarrass one of the Cybermen from Doctor Who and most of them went to public schools.

 

[manpaint]

Real thing I legitimately hated about school (STEM specifically): The thing where they would teach you something so oversimplified so as to be flat-out wrong one year, then the following year be like "oh by the way, that was all bullshit, this is how it really is" - only to do it again the year after.

Do you have any concrete example of this?