• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do Public Schools Turn Out Stupid Students?

Which do you MOST agree with?

  • "I was primarily educated in public schools and public schools produce stupid students."

    Votes: 11 28.9%
  • "I was primarily educated in private schools and public schools produce stupid students."

    Votes: 2 5.3%
  • "I was primarily educated in public schools and public schools can produce intelligent students."

    Votes: 24 63.2%
  • "I was primarily educated in private schools and public schools can produce intelligent students."

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Total voters
    38

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
I would be shocked if your core curriculum of history, english, and math were not geared toward the superiority of America, preparing you ideologically and practically to fight or do other menial labor. This trend may be changing due to liberal wackos, and that is very unfortunate.

Then prepare to be shocked. I will grant you this: the History was usually (though not always) a watered down patriotic jingoism full of half-truths, but my guess is that this aspect is even more intensified in private schools if some of our self-identified "conservative" members are any indication.

A little enlightenment via George Orwell:
War, it will be seen, not only accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labor of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of the masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive military victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in a an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quote other than the declared ones; but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world . . .

In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat. In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality. All rulers of all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency. So long as defeat meant the loss of independence, or some other result generally held to be undesirable, the precautions against defeat had to be serious. Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy or religion or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an airplane they had to make four. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later, and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusions . . . But when war becomes literally continuous, it also cease to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded.
Emphasis added.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Then prepare to be shocked. I will grant you this: the History was usually (though not always) a watered down patriotic jingoism full of half-truths, but my guess is that this aspect is even more intensified in private schools if some of our self-identified "conservative" members are any indication.

Was I not correct about the rest of my assessment? The division of core and extra curriculum, and your particular excellence? I'm sure that you were in advanced courses... by the time I was in school, all that stuff was optional and attached to college courses.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
That strawman doesn't even make sense.

I don't think it's a strawman as you repeated it in the same post in which you called it a strawman: "dying in the army may be the one thing honorable that an idiot has ever done." :(

As for its "sense," you already explained that the purpose of giving them a public education was to keep them stupid so they'd serve as cannon fodder. They died because they were "intentionally kept stupid" is a fair characterization.
 

Nanda

Polyanna
I knew it, bring on the exception parade! :slap:

Sorry if the world doesn't fit into some black and white mold. You'd think the fact that there are exceptions to every rule might have clued you into that by now.

Public education is what you make of it - in fact, all education is what you make of it. Some very intelligent people come out of the public schools, it can't be denied. And I imagine that one of the reasons that private schools have higher test scores is that they don't have to take everyone.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Was I not correct about the rest of my assessment?
No, the rest of your assessment is way off. I had emotional problems in high school largely because of my father's illness, so I didn't excel in high school, though I did take courses that were not of interest to most students. What that demonstrates, nevertheless, is that public schools can and do provide a good education for some students - those who want it, and are willing to work for it. For the rest, it provides the basic information they need to function in a trade or the military.

You didn't answer my main question I put to you at the beginning of this discussion. If vouchers were used instead, wouldn't the schools produce the exact same product? The world still needs workers and soldiers, and most of the students are destined for those roles.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Sorry if the world doesn't fit into some black and white mold. You'd think the fact that there are exceptions to every rule might have clued you into that by now.

Public education is what you make of it - in fact, all education is what you make of it. Some very intelligent people come out of the public schools, it can't be denied. And I imagine that one of the reasons that private schools have higher test scores is that they don't have to take everyone.

No, they don't have to take everyone AND they are not robbed of an education because of distractions from people not interested in receiving an education.

So what you are saying is, if I can afford to live in a good schools district and work hard I can receive an adequate education. No argument here. What about all the kids who want to better themselves and break the cycle of poverty that live next to real crappy schools?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
doppelgänger;1083266 said:
"dying in the army may be the one thing honorable that an idiot has ever done." :(

Yes. There's no reason to be sad about this. We need soldiers and workers, and we have fields in which they grow: the public school system. If better crops come out of it, that's great. If not, we still have the harvest.


As for its "sense," you already explained that the purpose of giving them a public education was to keep them stupid so they'd serve as cannon fodder. They died because they were "intentionally kept stupid" is a fair characterization.

That's not the strawman I was referring to. This assessment is correct, but it's backwards. The purpose is to produce acceptable soldiers and workers, so if someone is produced that is stupid, the purpose may still be fulfilled. If someone is produced that is smart, that's a good thing.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
doppelgänger;1083270 said:
You didn't answer my main question I put to you at the beginning of this discussion. If vouchers were used instead, wouldn't the schools produce the exact same product? The world still needs workers and soldiers, and most of the students are destined for those roles.

Yes, I thought that you confused me for Rick. I didn't express support for a voucher system.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
doppelgänger;1083270 said:
No, the rest of your assessment is way off. I had emotional problems in high school largely because of my father's illness, so I didn't excel in high school, though I did take courses that were not of interest to most students. What that demonstrates, nevertheless, is that public schools can and do provide a good education for some students - those who want it, and are willing to work for it.

Dopp, I'm not convinced yet that you are not personally exceptional. I don't mean this as flattery.

For the rest, it provides the basic information they need to function in a trade or the military.

I think that we're on the same page here.
 

Nanda

Polyanna
So what you are saying is, if I can afford to live in a good schools district and work hard I can receive an adequate education. No argument here. What about all the kids who want to better themselves and break the cycle of poverty that live next to real crappy schools?

All the more reason to put more tax money into public education.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
All the more reason to put more tax money into public education.

O if we could change the thinking that "we can solve this problem by throwing money at it" to "we can solve this problem by throwing money at Angellous."

What a wonderful world this could be.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
Dopp, I'm not convinced yet that you are not personally exceptional. I don't mean this as flattery.

I wasn't the only student in those courses. They were always full of other inquisitive students who wanted to learn about Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Art, and Psychology. There were plenty of kids who came from families that predisposed and/or encouraged them to be intellectually curious but who either lacked the money to afford private schools or more often were aware that their smart, confident kids could do just fine in the curriculum offered at the public school.

And that's my point. Public schools can and do produce bright and intelligent students. They also provide a basic serviceable education for kids lacking in intellectual curiosity or ability. If private schools started being funded by public money, as in a voucher system, they would have the exact same thing going on. The only difference is that it would create an easier avenue by which public money could be used to indoctrinate children with particular religious creeds. Otherwise, the system wouldn't not be any different.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
doppelgänger;1083305 said:
Otherwise, the system wouldn't not be any different.

I agree to a certain extent, with the notable exception of vouchers used for education in the classical method.
 

Nanda

Polyanna
O if we could change the thinking that "we can solve this problem by throwing money at it" to "we can solve this problem by throwing money at Angellous."

What a wonderful world this could be.

More money means more teachers, more programs, better equipment, feild trips; this is a situation where throwing money at the problem would do a world of good.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
More money means more teachers, more programs, better equipment, feild trips; this is a situation where throwing money at the problem would do a world of good.

I still like my solution. If I had more money, I would improve education.:yes: (the lie the state of Texas uses to keep the lottery going...)
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Yes, but only your own. And while I'm all for that, I need to think of the bigger picture. ;)

No, I would make sure to have more teachers, field trips, and so on.:angel2:
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
More money means more teachers, more programs, better equipment, feild trips; this is a situation where throwing money at the problem would do a world of good.
And more options. We can restore the avenues for art, music, humanities and other liberal arts that were present for so long but increasingly had their budgets slashed in recent years as the anti-intellectual crowd has turned its' collective sights on attacking public schooling.

We are currently breaking our public school system. But the solution is not throwing them out. That won't solve the problem. The solution is to fix them. We should fund them better to restore options for students who want to learn. We should stop robotically teaching to achieve standardized test results and punishing those schools most in need of improvement based on those tests.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
I can't use any of the poll answers. I think students come into education brilliant, smart, sharp average, average, dull average, dull, and stupid.

They pretty much leave the same way.

The question is do schools turn out IGNORANT students.

The answer is yes,m no and maybe. It depends upon the school.

Regards,
Scott
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
doppelgänger;1083319 said:
The solution is to fix them. We should fund them better to restore options for students who want to learn. We should stop robotically teaching to achieve standardized test results and punishing those schools most in need of improvement based on those tests.
:clap:clap:clap
 
Top