One common argument for the absolute pablum that passes for education today is that it has “benefits that cannot be quantified.” That is to say, if a very high proportion of what one learns in schools is ultimately not useful in “real life,” somehow this learning has unmeasurable benefit.

If these so-called “benefits” truly indeed cannot be “quantified,” how exactly does one know that they exist? Consider the tricky issue of measuring the value of life. As difficult a problem this is, there are ways of arranging and sorting life. One may accomplish this by categorizing in terms of size, genetic complexity, physical resemblance, or even social impact. Some of these ways may be more or less valuable (and, certainly, occupy many dimensions), but they are all methods of quantifying life.

Not only is it possible to quantify “life,” there are many ways of doing so. Surely, there must be at least one way to quantify the sorts of “non-useful” things that one must sit through in grade school.

Couple this with the student who is graduated through school and ends up with a diploma in his hands, yet lacks basic reading and arithmetic skills. Assuming that “unquantifiable benefits” even exist, how can they be considered beneficial for this poor slob? It sounds to me like that student just had 12 years of his life wasted while not learning anything of real substance. He hasn’t learned how to get by, nor will he unless he takes the initiative. The track record of such individuals is exceedingly poor.

As an aside, I don’t really think that there should even be grades, per se. There ought to be something more like a map of studies, with reading and arithmetic being the core (and perhaps one or two other subjects). In much the same way that college operates, there ought to be general areas of study. I think that a child, with parental consultation, ought to be able to make the decision based on what interests him as opposed to being forced into a box. If the child does not want to proceed beyond the core studies, then the child ought not to be forced to do so. The child may come around, in time, or he may not, but at least then he has the rudimentary skills to get by.

That said, I find it hard to believe that a child would not be interested in learning something at least for an hour or two a day, at first.

RSS feed | Trackback URI

Comments »

Trackback responses to this post