Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with you, though I'm a little surprised to see you are asserting this. Consider your own post from 4/8/10. I must say I don't pick up on the benefits of expanding horizons via a well rounded curriculum...
Not really. I can be glad I was exposed to things without needing a particular fact now. I'm not into memorization of facts. It does not serve me well. I really don't care when columbus landed. Now, THAT he landed, the story of my country, THAT's another story. Just don't ask me to state dates. I really don't care when things happened. I don't care that my chemistry students can state when they happened either. What matters, IMO, is the impact of the story not the date it happened on.
I pick it up just fine. I don't need the details to get the big picture. The date something happened is a detail I can look up if I ever need it. The story is something else.
In the future, please do not pull things out of context and pull them into different arguments. The fact I don't think memorizing dates is important doesn't mean I don't get why we need to learn history. Not even close.
After he was 12, he had music teachers to be sure, but these concentrated in music. We can hardly say he was educated in any other academic subjects.
I was referring to his music education since that is what he is known for. Imagine a world where he was left to teach himself only what he knew to teach himself. I don't believe he would have turned the same without teachers who, I am certain, made him learn things he didn't see a lot of use for at the time.
I think kids need to be taught and they need to be taught things they wouldn't know to teach themselves. Some they'll keep. Some they'll toss but the choice of what to keep and what to toss is made later so you cannot leave it up to a child to choose what they want to learn.
???I posted above that Socrates went to school in Athens. I was referring to Beethoven's music education.
You can stop with the head smacking. You know that you edited your post as I was typing that response and it is only assumed that Socrates went to school. It is not a known fact.
Quote:
I said most children will not learn to think without being taught.
This is what you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
The truth is, most kids won't learn how to think if they don't go to school.
Quote:
I happen to think that schools are a good way to teach. I like my children having experts to teach them. As a parent, I'd be pretty darned arrogant if I thought I had what it takes to teach my children everything.
Was Thomas Edison's mother arrogant? He was homeschooled. How about George Washington's Mom? Thomas Jefferson's? Here is a list of famous people who were homeschooled: Homeschooled-Famous Homeschoolers Are you saying that all of their parents were arrogant?
You can stop with the head smacking. You know that you edited your post as I was typing that response and it is only assumed that Socrates went to school. It is not a known fact.
This is what you said:
Was Thomas Edison's mother arrogant? He was homeschooled. How about George Washington's Mom? Thomas Jefferson's? Here is a list of famous people who were homeschooled: Homeschooled-Famous Homeschoolers Are you saying that all of their parents were arrogant?
Times have changed. We now need to learn more than most of our mothers are capable of teaching us.
It is a logical conclusion that Socrates attended school. The level of his education is taken as proof. What proof do you have that his mother taught him all he knew? Scholars accept that he was formally educated. On what do you base your assumption he wasn't?
What does my editing a post when you are typing a response have to do with anything? It's not like I changed it after you answered. I often decide to clarify my posts after initially posting. It means nothing other than I decided to clarify a post. I don't have ESP. I didn't know you were typing a response and it wasn't deliberate, By your own admission it was WHILE you were posting which means it's not in response to your post so it has nothing to do with the conversation. I decided to word something differently. Period.
Times have changed. We now need to learn more than most of our mothers are capable of teaching us.
You never miss an opportunity to try and belittle homeschoolers, do you? That's your opinion and it's not backed up by anything other then that. Homeschooling has proved to be very successful and I'm sorry that your view is so limited.
Quote:
It is a logical conclusion that Socrates attended school. The level of his education is taken as proof. What proof do you have that his mother taught him all he knew? Scholars accept that he was formally educated. On what do you base your assumption he wasn't?
I never said he was home schooled. There is no proof in any form about how he was educated. Maybe he was self educated, maybe he went to school, maybe he had mentors. No one knows. It's a mystery.
Quote:
What does my editing a post when you are typing a response have to do with anything? It's not like I changed it after you answered. I often decide to clarify my posts after initially posting. It means nothing other than I decided to clarify a post. I don't have ESP. I didn't know you were typing a response and it wasn't deliberate, By your own admission it was WHILE you were posting which means it's not in response to your post so it has nothing to do with the conversation. I decided to word something differently. Period.
Because you added the part in about where Socrates (supposedly) went to school after I had responded to your initial post that did not contain that information. In my very next post I noted that you had edited it and responded to the additional information (not just wording it differently, you added additional information) and then you decide to quote me based on my initial response to your unedited post and rudely (with the multiple question marks and the head smack that you are oh so fond of) and act like it had always contained the info about Socrates' (supposed) schooling. Is that so difficult to understand?
I think school is more about miseducation and misdirection than formal indoctrination.
-The aim I think is to scatter your mind from what's going on. I went to middle school until 1992 and highschool until 1996. What did I learn about the world?
What happened in the 2000's? Look at all these buzzwords...goldman sachs, derivatives, subprime mortgages, the global financial crisis, "The great recession", credit default swaps, "quantitative easing", fraud and abuse on wall street, etc.
What do all the buzzwords have in common? None of them were taught in school in the 90's! That's not indoctrination. Maybe indoctrination about not being curious about the world. But it's more misdirection and scattering of resources.
I find it hard to believe that the department of education, with billions in resources and an army of experts and administrators on hand, would miss all of those subjects in school.That's quite a coincidence. That every single issue that impacted people in the 2000's was missed in the 90's. It's not a coincidence that goldman sachs fraud isn't found in your highschool history book. Or that fraud and inept ceo's aren't found in your average highschool economics text. Everyone is rational in economics, lol. What they teach is a la la land. Like a disney fairy tale.
You can stop with the head smacking. You know that you edited your post as I was typing that response and it is only assumed that Socrates went to school. It is not a known fact.
This is what you said:
Was Thomas Edison's mother arrogant? He was homeschooled. How about George Washington's Mom? Thomas Jefferson's? Here is a list of famous people who were homeschooled: Homeschooled-Famous Homeschoolers Are you saying that all of their parents were arrogant?
I know this post is a couple of weeks old but I am just coming across it. I read your link and a few things jumped out at me as a scientist. The first was that with the exception of Erik Demaine most of the "famous" scientists were from years ago and Erik is true genius , hardly the typical student in anyway. I also noticed that Oliver Heaviside was on that list. He went to a traditional school until 16 which was the normal for children of his era and then went on to pursue his interests. I will say that it isn't just arrogant but downright deceitful to call Oliver HEaviside homeschooled let alone make him the posterchild for famous homeschooled scientists. Shame on that website and you to for not better researching your sources. I can tell you with all honesty that is something you would have learned in my school.
I was referring to his music education since that is what he is known for. Imagine a world where he was left to teach himself only what he knew to teach himself. I don't believe he would have turned the same without teachers who, I am certain, made him learn things he didn't see a lot of use for at the time.
I think kids need to be taught and they need to be taught things they wouldn't know to teach themselves. Some they'll keep. Some they'll toss but the choice of what to keep and what to toss is made later so you cannot leave it up to a child to choose what they want to learn.
I agree with the bolded to a degree; however, I think each child's personality plays a large role in that as well. Having said that, I do agree with the more exposure the better (be it traditional school or homeschool). Exposure is one very important thing, but not allowing them any the autonomy to choose can backfire as well IMO.
A child who enjoys something immensely will usually immerse themselves in it. One of the best things my DS's guitar teacher ever was able to get through to him is "If you can follow directions, you can teach yourself anything." It was nice to hear it from someone else because I had been telling him that for years, but then again, who am I but "Mom"?
Nonetheless, my brother is a good example of those who teach themselves - he is a pianist and can play quite literally anything by ear. He started with an old Chickering parlor grand piano when he was around 10 years old. He eventually taught himself to read music. His love of music also led to his career in tuning and piano rebuilding. He's 48 now and is doing very well.
The best thing my parents could have done for him was to leave him alone and let him develop his love for it IMO. Had they started force-feeding lessons and practice schedules, I don't think his outcome would have been as good. We were exposed to a piano in the corner and a little bit of "nothing to do."
Again, it depends on the individual child to me. Maybe others would need that sort of push to become successful.
I know this post is a couple of weeks old but I am just coming across it. I read your link and a few things jumped out at me as a scientist. The first was that with the exception of Erik Demaine most of the "famous" scientists were from years ago and Erik is true genius , hardly the typical student in anyway. I also noticed that Oliver Heaviside was on that list. He went to a traditional school until 16 which was the normal for children of his era and then went on to pursue his interests. I will say that it isn't just arrogant but downright deceitful to call Oliver HEaviside homeschooled let alone make him the posterchild for famous homeschooled scientists. Shame on that website and you to for not better researching your sources. I can tell you with all honesty that is something you would have learned in my school.
Oliver Heaviside was homeschooled (rather self taught form the ages of 16 to 18). Just because he wasn't homeschooled for his entire life does not mean that he was not homeschooled.
Oliver Heaviside (18 May 1850 – 3 February 1925) was a self-taught English electrical engineer, mathematician, and physicist who adapted complex numbers to the study of electrical circuits, invented mathematical techniques to the solution of differential equations (later found to be equivalent to Laplace transforms), reformulated Maxwell's field equations in terms of electric and magnetic forces and energy flux, and independently co-formulated vector analysis.
Surely he was not taught this stuff in school as a child and young teen.
Oliver Heaviside was homeschooled (rather self taught form the ages of 16 to 18). Just because he wasn't homeschooled for his entire life does not mean that he was not homeschooled.
Apparently you are unaware of the English education system particularly as it worked at that time period. Public secondary school ENDS at 16. So portraying it as if he left to be homeschooled is a lie. He did what many scientists do, he taught himself (using the things taught to him in public school) the skills he needed to pursue his research. That is no different that my teaching myself Shannon Diversity Index to pursue my research. I am not homeschooled just because I was self-taught.
This is also completely normal for almost all scientists of the time, especially the wealthier ones who need not depend on a university in order to fund their intellectual pursuits.
Surely? Are you as sure about that as his homeschooling?
All of my sixteen year old students learn it. Every single one. And since Oliver went to school in England, if he had gone on to sixth form/college (like most 16-17 yos do) he would have learned it there too.
Until I read that website I had an overall neutral opinion of homeschooling. I thought it was positive for elementary and some middle schoolers but my experience with teaching college courses to homeschooled students left me with a somewhat negative impression of it for high schoolers. Now after seeing the need of a homeschool parent and organization to deceptively place a famous scientist who completed his public school years but did not opt to go onto college as a "homeschooler" makes me question the whole thing. If it is such a benefit to homeschool why lie so blatantly about it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
That's your opinion and it's not backed up by anything other then that. Homeschooling has proved to be very successful and I'm sorry that your view is so limited. 
