Originally Posted by Galt
I can guarentee you that in the two years students would study economics they wouldn't be able to cover all of the influencial economists. They'd probably just teach you about Bartlett, Diamond and Hardin. They probably wouldn't even mention Sowell and Simon.
One more thing, there already is an economics elective in most Australian public schools. The only public schools that don't have an economic class would probably just have a lack of teachers. I've got a few friends of mine doing that economics class, I'll ask them tommorow what they study in it.
The economics taught in schools is not taught so people understand the different standpoints of every economist, its taught so they understand the applicable theories and economic practices and solutions used in their countries. Maynard Keynes is the founder of that school of economic thought but his work isn't solely used in our economy, also his work has been improved by many other economists.
The philosophy thing, well, there is a lot to learn but I do think that perhaps an introduction to it in order to ignite a spark could be a good thing. I will be 18 soon and it has taken me until now, really, to discover philosophy at all. Surely I have found it at a young age by comparison to some. I would assume that as people grow older and change the way they see the world they may have become interested in philosophy as they got older, but if they had known of it earlier perhaps they would have become interested in it earlier or known where to start when they did finally gain an interest.
Sure enough, the Philosopher kings may spring to mind when talking of educating everyone in philosophy, but tbh I feel that we have been unfortunate in the selection of those whom have been called Philosopher Kings and through further education, we may get a good one.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
ALL HAIL THE METAPHOR!!
ALL HAIL THE METAPHOR!!
Originally Posted by Murmayder
The economics taught in schools is not taught so people understand the different standpoints of every economist, its taught so they understand the applicable theories and economic practices and solutions used in their countries. Maynard Keynes is the founder of that school of economic thought but his work isn't solely used in our economy, also his work has been improved by many other economists.
Ergo, the govt. would clearly be teaching students all about Keynesian economics. Diametrically opposed to, ofcourse, Friedman.
Originally Posted by Murmayder
The philosophy thing, well, there is a lot to learn but I do think that perhaps an introduction to it in order to ignite a spark could be a good thing. I will be 18 soon and it has taken me until now, really, to discover philosophy at all. Surely I have found it at a young age by comparison to some. I would assume that as people grow older and change the way they see the world they may have become interested in philosophy as they got older, but if they had known of it earlier perhaps they would have become interested in it earlier or known where to start when they did finally gain an interest.
Whether the Australian govt. decides to teach them about Pluto or Rand it doesn't really matter. Does the m/b/illions that go into supplying the schools with new philosophy textbooks and educating teachers about the various ideologies justify the end result? A bunch of pretentious philosoraptors? Or even worse, the students don't pay any attention to it at all? Try teaching an kid with an IQ of 70 about Nietsche's Zarathustra.
Regardless, in no way is philosophy as important as the core subjects and economics.
Admittedly though, it would be fun.
[doc]
Originally Posted by Galt
Ergo, the govt. would clearly be teaching students all about Keynesian economics. Diametrically opposed to, ofcourse, Friedman.
But it defeats the point in terms of the teachers or government deciding that Keynesian economics is better than that of Reaganomics simply because they like it better. The students should only be taught what is relevant to their economy. This is not to say that we aren't taught about Friedman btw, we are, but the point is that is rambling on about economic theory, no matter how interesting, is pointless if it isn't relevant to the student. Surely those who do have an interest in the theories and speculations of other economists will look into that in their own time, but those who are sticking to the mandatory course and the school curriculum will not be disadvantaged in terms of their economic understanding, but only their exposure to different ideas.
Originally Posted by Galt
Whether the Australian govt. decides to teach them about Pluto or Rand it doesn't really matter. Does the m/b/illions that go into supplying the schools with new philosophy textbooks and educating teachers about the various ideologies justify the end result? A bunch of pretentious philosoraptors? Or even worse, the students don't pay any attention to it at all? Try teaching an kid with an IQ of 70 about Nietsche's Zarathustra.
Regardless, in no way is philosophy as important as the core subjects and economics.
Admittedly though, it would be fun.
Perhaps we can only dream
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
ALL HAIL THE METAPHOR!!
ALL HAIL THE METAPHOR!!
I believe that English would make sense to be the only language, I mean other languages such as Spanish and French are good too, This is mostly because most of us on this speak English, and most of the other countries learn English and SPanish, and french. It's all about popular learning, yet I do agree there should be some variety in there language teachings. As far as other subjects go the usual Goverment/history/economics, math(the language we can all speak), PE(good to keep down obesity), science, Religion(its nice to have faith, maybe optional though), and most of the other customary subjects.
The whole system, nay, the whole AMERICA is fucked up.
There are to many reasons to say in a post, and really, I dont feel like typing them all.
But the school system is a factor. They teach you so many things you DONT need to know,
and those things you forget anyways. Also are you guys really debating if people should know english? If your in America, yeah you should. Although im not saying everyone should only speak english, im just saying everyone needs to know it just in case.
Again, the school system teaches you so many things you dont use, its really a waste of your time (like 2/4). In till collage you learn crap.
Although you need math and grammar to be tought at a young age, do you really think you should learn science and history and a young age? nooo. Ok, it does help you realize if you have a love for it. BUT what about the other 30 some kids? Most of the kids wont even become a scientist, and if they do there probably going to take REAL science in high school. Also there aren't even alot of jobs for history? like digging for bones? thats digging? not oh "I LEARNED ABOUT GEORGE WASHINGTON I KNOW WHERE TO DIG NOW"
but dont get me wrong, if you know history itd be a main factor.
But it most likely wouldnt be the history you learned when you were like 8 or 9.
Itd be the history you learned in high school, collage, and so on.
Well thats just my thinkings.
There are to many reasons to say in a post, and really, I dont feel like typing them all.
But the school system is a factor. They teach you so many things you DONT need to know,
and those things you forget anyways. Also are you guys really debating if people should know english? If your in America, yeah you should. Although im not saying everyone should only speak english, im just saying everyone needs to know it just in case.
Again, the school system teaches you so many things you dont use, its really a waste of your time (like 2/4). In till collage you learn crap.
Although you need math and grammar to be tought at a young age, do you really think you should learn science and history and a young age? nooo. Ok, it does help you realize if you have a love for it. BUT what about the other 30 some kids? Most of the kids wont even become a scientist, and if they do there probably going to take REAL science in high school. Also there aren't even alot of jobs for history? like digging for bones? thats digging? not oh "I LEARNED ABOUT GEORGE WASHINGTON I KNOW WHERE TO DIG NOW"
but dont get me wrong, if you know history itd be a main factor.
But it most likely wouldnt be the history you learned when you were like 8 or 9.
Itd be the history you learned in high school, collage, and so on.
Well thats just my thinkings.
