Would that not utterly stratify social classes? Upward social mobility would be near impossible if not for general education?
Children would have no approaches other than what their family already has access to. The son of a smith becomes a smith, the son of a carpenter becomes a carpenter, the son of a lawyer becomes a lawyer and so on.
And schools also function in part as day care. Parents can devote hours of the day to work, focused and without worry for their child. If all parents had to bring their children to work, would that not diminish their ability to work?
Can an electrician focus on his work when a young child is with him? How can he teach the child the theory of electrophysics that is necessary to understand if one is to become an electrician? Do others at the site watch the children and explain the theory? Would you then not end up with teachers again?
Edit:
This is also a rather amerocentric take. What of other countries educational systems where you can choose more directional high schools. Where the final year of highschool IS an apprenticeship in some vocation? Where you leave school, with no debt and with experience on the job.
And all the countries where education is free. Countries where relevant experience is a part of the degree? Where courses in teamwork, leadership and other skills are a part of higher education?
To discard educational systems because of the defects of a single country's defects seems poorly thought out.
> Can an electrician focus on his work when a young child is with him?
Yes, of course. This doesn't mean a 4 year old is coming along on a traditional 8 hour US electrician's shift. It doesn't mean the 10 year old is coming along to the dangerous industrial jobs. When kids get put into reasonable contexts they adapt, it's kind of what we excel at as a species.
However, I was absolutely learning how to do basic home wiring (at a semi-useful level for some tasks) and electrical theory before I was in my double digits in years. By the time I was 10 or 11 (hard to recall precisely) I was wiring up my own circuits (alarm on my door to not be caught reading at night) at home and doing dangerous things with line current. I certainly knew enough to be dangerous, but also did understand the basics of how AC and DC circuits worked.
To this day I can still do basic electrical work such as bending conduit, wiring in work boxes - essentially everything past the demarc. These were all skills I learned before I was a teenager by helping out on job sites.
> How can he teach the child the theory of electrophysics that is necessary to understand if one is to become an electrician? Do others at the site watch the children and explain the theory? Would you then not end up with teachers again?
How many working electricians understand things to such a deep level? While I certainly understand more these days than I did at age 12, I can't really say any of it would be useful on a typical residential job site. The safety aspect is pretty well handled by a few standard rules of thumb that don't require much deep theory-level knowledge.
I'm very much not anti-school, but anyone who thinks our current system remotely challenges most individuals seems to have an incredible lack of imagination to me. Yes, this requires far more effort from far more adults across the entire spectrum of society.
Edit: All I do know is that sequestering kids away from 'real life' is damaging, and I'm unsure anything can convince me otherwise at this point in my life. We can never go back in time and give someone those experiences later in life (brains stop making neural connections as quickly) so I do often ponder what is truly being lost forever.
I see where you were going, but I don't think Theory of Mind quite fits.
ToM says that a person understands someone else to have their own knowledge, ideas, motivations, etc. But this behavior is not simply understanding that others have their own motivations, but imputing negative motivations onto others.
It's estimates of future behavior from past public behavior and public statements and documented funding. Ask a teacher how they feel about Betsy Devos and you will get two very very very different answers largely depending on political ideologies that have nothing to do with teaching because of her history and "friends".
She isn't exactly friendly to public education, and a lot of the funding for pushing for voucher programs comes from religious organizations.
For a concrete example, our state has had vouchers for decades, and it has done jack, diddly, and squat for improving public schools in the area, because it turns out letting the rich kids go to a school only they can go to just means they have an easier time neglecting the other hundred thousand kids in the state that weren't born to the local power family. Meanwhile up north where there isn't enough density to support a school as a private business and not enough rich families to want it anyway, everyone is put into the same couple schools which struggle to ever have enough money to do even the basics but the teachers are good and the material is good and the effort is there, so for the kids that want education, there's a perfectly good one for all to have. I was classmates with a famous Senator's niece, and we had the same teachers and it turns out the world doesn't end when you let the poors learn stuff.
Don't be so cynical. There are serious problems with schools and there's no visible progress, so many people gave up. They concluded the problems are endemic and permanent and the only way to fix them is to dissolve the schools entirely.
Which is why they are pretty much universally funded by religious fundamentalists who spent their past years trying to force textbook writers to deny climate change or evolution as basic scientific facts.
This isn't disillusioned people looking to tear it all down and rebuild a wonderful new system, unless you think Betsy Devos is some sort of anarchist. These people have very specific complaints about the school system that rarely have to do with the actual problems of actual outcomes, because the people who by and large ARE getting actual bad outcomes from the public school system don't really have a voice.
What religious fundamentalists? Maybe in the US? Where I live, schools are actually a source of aggressive religious propaganda. But the problems with schools are far wider than that they become ideological battlefields with propaganda-filled curricula. Lots of non-religious and moderate people see the problems.
Not today. Schools no longer have monopoly on education. They actually prevent kids from learning by overloading them with the official curriculum, leaving no time or energy for informal education.
NTNU still has at least one course that uses Simula for coursework. TTM4110 - Dependability and Performance with Discrete Event Simulation. An interesting course but without anyone who had real experience with the language teaching it, it was a slog to get through.
Ha, that’s interesting. I used to TA parts of that course; I had to learn Simula and Demos (a simulation library). If I recall correctly it was the first run of the course, and I had to develop some of the labs.
Yes, the material was specifically describing DEMOS and Simula. The coursework was all about the dependability and performance of a simulation we had to program using DEMOS. Interesting course really, but a bit let down by teaching assistants who didn't know the material very well.
I believe CIM does the work of compiling C as well, but i may be misremebering.
