While I agree with much in this article, the idea that “ If schools only focused on those three subjects, they could reach EQF Level 4 (roughly Calculus-level math, college-level English, and AP-level Sciences) by age 12-13 simply by focusing on these three subjects alone from a young age, rather than spending time on useless material” is ludicrous.
1) Human brains do not mature that quickly.
2) There are huge variations in the ability of children to learn complex topics.
I don’t doubt that a few high-achievers could do it, but basing an entire school system on that assumption is ridiculous. I do agree that a more focused curriculum would have better results, and a good education system should be able to enable 95% of 18-year-olds to be capable of being a competent self-supporting adult.
Note: above I am splicing two sentences in the quote above together.
It’s not at all true historically that marriage at 15-16 was the norm. *one* norm is for wives around that age, but there are at least three norms in the ancient world, with wives up to early 20s common in certain parts of the Roman Empire (husbands are always either a couple years older or a lot older.) And of course Northwestern Europe has had a mid-20s norm for 700 years.
Yeah, I'm likewise calling BS on teenage marriage being the norm. I have no knowledge of Rome, but some sample quotes from the "European marriage pattern" Wikipedia:
> Noblewomen and gentlewomen married early, but they were a small minority;[35] a thousand marriage certificates issued by the Diocese of Canterbury between 1619 and 1660 show that only one bride was aged thirteen years, four were fifteen, twelve were sixteen, seventeen were seventeen, and the other 966 of the brides were aged nineteen years or older when they married for the first time.
> From 1619 to 1660 in the archdiocese of Canterbury, England, the median age of the brides was 22 years and nine months while the median age for the grooms was 25 years and six months, with average ages of 24 years for the brides and nearly 28 years for the grooms, with the most common ages at marriage being 22 years for women and 24 years for men; the Church dictated that the age when one could marry without the consent of one's parents was 21 years. A large majority of English brides in this time were at least 19 years of age when they married, and only one bride in a thousand was thirteen years of age or younger.
> The highest average age at first marriage was in the Netherlands: on average 27 years for women and 30 years for men in both the rural and urban population from the late 1400's onward till the end of WWII, rising at times to 30 years for women and 32 years for men. On average 25-30% of people in the Netherlands remained unmarried throughout their life between 1500 and 1950.
I mean, you can argue that Europe was already weird (It's a page on the *European* marriage pattern for a reason), but it's at least obvious that marrying in ones 20s and 30s is historically pretty normal for people of European descent for the past half millennium, and not a disease of modernity per se
Yeah, the "European marriage pattern" is the one I was mentioning in my last sentence; it's on the far end of historical societies, but "15 or 16-year old typical bride" is on the opposite end, and the European marriage pattern is already very old.
I believe without government meddling, the natural flow for most children into adulthood would be to learn the three Rs, then explore a library and play and work as they and their parents see fit. Mow lawns, deliver groceries, wash windows, absolutely moronic jobs which teach the basics of responsibility and how the world works. Go to work with parents and their friends just to learn how adults work, how offices and work crews cooperate and what true team work is.
Give them the basic tools to decide if they like music or painting or sports or writing. As they get older, provide science labs. Make them all voluntary. None of this full semester of boredom whether they like it or not. I had my fill of teachers destroying my interest in literature and history, and I'm sure most people had other subjects they came to hate prematurely.
And eventually kids would be working enough to live on their own and pay their own bills. Whether that's at 15 or 25 is nobody's business but theirs and their parents.
Then once they've got that sorted out, and probably started a family, then they can study all the history and literature and pop psychology they want -- on their own dime.
The worst thing about the educational industry is its insistence that everyone needs to sit in classrooms all day every day until they graduate from college, and then expect them to act like adults. I can't think of a better way to turn out faux-adults with no sense of reality or responsibility.
This is like arguing that we shouldnt fly in planes because we aren't biologically made for flight and historically flight wasn't a thing. Im not a blank slate guy but this other extreme is just the mirror idiocy of that.
Do you seriously think people should start work at 12 and get married at 15? Because “biological clocks” and “historical precedent”? Im sorry but that's simply moronic (and creepy). I dont think im the delusional one in this conversation.
(And BTW, what in the world does this have to do with whether there's credentials inflation in vocational training or not???? It sounds more like some crazy person hitching their creepy ideas to sensible wagon to make them more palatable)
Want to articulate whats actually deeply stupid about *my* argument? Why should we decide on the age at which people start work and get married based on "biological clocks and historical norms"?
I already explained it in my first comment, but basically any viewpoint that is not aligned with humans being first and foremost biological organisms and we need to understand humans from a study of history is likely to be incorrect. Refusing to start from those foundations is “deeply stupid”.
No, you did not explain it in the first comment. At best you made an assertion: "that's a very dangerous idea". If you dont know the difference between an assertion and an explanation, then i cannot help YOU.
And again you are ignoring my very simple counter example. We do things which dont "align" with our biology or history all the time. We fly. We dont work the land. We take aspirin. We dont die before age of 50. Insisting that we must do things "according to historical norms" is transparently idiotic, given the last 300-1000 years of human history. Insisting we do it "aligned with our biology" slightly less so.
Do you honestly believe that starting work at age 12 and marrying at 15 is something we "should do"? And hell that doesnt even work on its own terms. Average age st marriage was in the 20s for many societies for good chunks of history. So the argument is not just logically dumb, its based on historical ignorance too.
People who refuse to fly planes will be militarily defeated by those who do. What's your argument for WHY it's "moronic" for people to start work at 12 and get married at 15?
It’s moronic to insist that people “should” do this. Is it moronic to do it? The marriage part most definitely yes. People who do this end up poor and unhappy. The work at 12 thing, you can split hairs about what exactly is meant by it, but if it’s work in the sense of “job” then yes, also dumb. There are better uses of people’s time at that age. You know we haven’t had people start work at 12 for like, 150 or 200 years now, and we’ve done pretty well, right? We haven’t had “marry at 15” since like the Bronze Age (the author is just historically ignorant, even as he invokes “historical norms”)
At some point this becomes a non serious conversation and not worth pursuing further. That point may have already been passed.
At 12 years of age I was required to go to school, which was a massive waste of my time. I learned far more in a much smaller amount of time working. We've "done pretty well" because we're rich enough that we can afford to be wasteful and stupid, like https://www.betonit.ai/p/qatar-and-reverse-causation
We can recognize it (no idea why you bring “needs and wants” into this and what it has to do with anything - look like a lame attempt to bolster a weak argument with a bit of straw), but we dont have to be slaves to it. We aren't biologically made for flight. Historically we didn't fly around. Does that mean we should ban airplanes?
It means we shouldn't try to fly by flapping our arms, as that's incompatible with our biology. People who try such a strategy will fail, while humans who get around via walking will generally succeed.
Any refusal to recognize that people are not identical machines with identical wants and needs is deeply stupid. Any pretense of being clever while sneering at such a concept is even deeplier stupid.
Keep strawmaning. I never said anything about people being "identical machines". I said that making an argument based on "biological clocks and historical norms" is dumb.
You said, quote, "no idea why you bring “needs and wants” into this and what it has to do with anything - look like a lame attempt to bolster a weak argument with a bit of straw",
In other words, you sneer at the idea that people are different. Straw or not, huff and puff all you want, but people are not identical.
Believing marrying at 15-16 is a good idea should be enough to eradicate the credibility of anything this guy says. Completely out of touch with the reality beyond his cushy office. Prime example of the "leaders" in America's higher education system, and why it sucks.
The German vocational training is pretty ok (not perfect, ofc - and obviously longer than needed; 3-4 years); it is definitely open to higher qualifications, I know several people who went to college after apprenticeship, some even without an "Abitur" (most teens in Germany now stay in school 13 years to get that degree, as it it usu. required to get into our - free - universities).
Anyone who thinks they know what is best for everybody else should be deported as a danger to the public of them turning into politicians or egging them on.
While I agree with much in this article, the idea that “ If schools only focused on those three subjects, they could reach EQF Level 4 (roughly Calculus-level math, college-level English, and AP-level Sciences) by age 12-13 simply by focusing on these three subjects alone from a young age, rather than spending time on useless material” is ludicrous.
1) Human brains do not mature that quickly.
2) There are huge variations in the ability of children to learn complex topics.
I don’t doubt that a few high-achievers could do it, but basing an entire school system on that assumption is ridiculous. I do agree that a more focused curriculum would have better results, and a good education system should be able to enable 95% of 18-year-olds to be capable of being a competent self-supporting adult.
Note: above I am splicing two sentences in the quote above together.
It’s not at all true historically that marriage at 15-16 was the norm. *one* norm is for wives around that age, but there are at least three norms in the ancient world, with wives up to early 20s common in certain parts of the Roman Empire (husbands are always either a couple years older or a lot older.) And of course Northwestern Europe has had a mid-20s norm for 700 years.
Yeah, I'm likewise calling BS on teenage marriage being the norm. I have no knowledge of Rome, but some sample quotes from the "European marriage pattern" Wikipedia:
> Noblewomen and gentlewomen married early, but they were a small minority;[35] a thousand marriage certificates issued by the Diocese of Canterbury between 1619 and 1660 show that only one bride was aged thirteen years, four were fifteen, twelve were sixteen, seventeen were seventeen, and the other 966 of the brides were aged nineteen years or older when they married for the first time.
> From 1619 to 1660 in the archdiocese of Canterbury, England, the median age of the brides was 22 years and nine months while the median age for the grooms was 25 years and six months, with average ages of 24 years for the brides and nearly 28 years for the grooms, with the most common ages at marriage being 22 years for women and 24 years for men; the Church dictated that the age when one could marry without the consent of one's parents was 21 years. A large majority of English brides in this time were at least 19 years of age when they married, and only one bride in a thousand was thirteen years of age or younger.
> The highest average age at first marriage was in the Netherlands: on average 27 years for women and 30 years for men in both the rural and urban population from the late 1400's onward till the end of WWII, rising at times to 30 years for women and 32 years for men. On average 25-30% of people in the Netherlands remained unmarried throughout their life between 1500 and 1950.
I mean, you can argue that Europe was already weird (It's a page on the *European* marriage pattern for a reason), but it's at least obvious that marrying in ones 20s and 30s is historically pretty normal for people of European descent for the past half millennium, and not a disease of modernity per se
Yeah, the "European marriage pattern" is the one I was mentioning in my last sentence; it's on the far end of historical societies, but "15 or 16-year old typical bride" is on the opposite end, and the European marriage pattern is already very old.
I believe without government meddling, the natural flow for most children into adulthood would be to learn the three Rs, then explore a library and play and work as they and their parents see fit. Mow lawns, deliver groceries, wash windows, absolutely moronic jobs which teach the basics of responsibility and how the world works. Go to work with parents and their friends just to learn how adults work, how offices and work crews cooperate and what true team work is.
Give them the basic tools to decide if they like music or painting or sports or writing. As they get older, provide science labs. Make them all voluntary. None of this full semester of boredom whether they like it or not. I had my fill of teachers destroying my interest in literature and history, and I'm sure most people had other subjects they came to hate prematurely.
And eventually kids would be working enough to live on their own and pay their own bills. Whether that's at 15 or 25 is nobody's business but theirs and their parents.
Then once they've got that sorted out, and probably started a family, then they can study all the history and literature and pop psychology they want -- on their own dime.
The worst thing about the educational industry is its insistence that everyone needs to sit in classrooms all day every day until they graduate from college, and then expect them to act like adults. I can't think of a better way to turn out faux-adults with no sense of reality or responsibility.
Credentials is a rampant disease
Credentialism
VET! Passarelle! Wunderbar! Mervilleuse! Magnifico!
Any argument that relies on the idea of "biological clocks and historical norms" is deeply stupid
Seriously?
Ignore biology and history?
That is a very dangerous idea.
This is like arguing that we shouldnt fly in planes because we aren't biologically made for flight and historically flight wasn't a thing. Im not a blank slate guy but this other extreme is just the mirror idiocy of that.
Do you seriously think people should start work at 12 and get married at 15? Because “biological clocks” and “historical precedent”? Im sorry but that's simply moronic (and creepy). I dont think im the delusional one in this conversation.
(And BTW, what in the world does this have to do with whether there's credentials inflation in vocational training or not???? It sounds more like some crazy person hitching their creepy ideas to sensible wagon to make them more palatable)
I am reacting to what you actually wrote (which was also “deeply stupid”)
If you want to see what I think about the article, scan the comments.
Want to articulate whats actually deeply stupid about *my* argument? Why should we decide on the age at which people start work and get married based on "biological clocks and historical norms"?
Why should we decide whether to eat plants vs gravel based on biology and historical norms? Why shouldn't people graduate school at age 200?
I already explained it in my first comment, but basically any viewpoint that is not aligned with humans being first and foremost biological organisms and we need to understand humans from a study of history is likely to be incorrect. Refusing to start from those foundations is “deeply stupid”.
If you do not understand it, I cannot help you.
No, you did not explain it in the first comment. At best you made an assertion: "that's a very dangerous idea". If you dont know the difference between an assertion and an explanation, then i cannot help YOU.
And again you are ignoring my very simple counter example. We do things which dont "align" with our biology or history all the time. We fly. We dont work the land. We take aspirin. We dont die before age of 50. Insisting that we must do things "according to historical norms" is transparently idiotic, given the last 300-1000 years of human history. Insisting we do it "aligned with our biology" slightly less so.
Do you honestly believe that starting work at age 12 and marrying at 15 is something we "should do"? And hell that doesnt even work on its own terms. Average age st marriage was in the 20s for many societies for good chunks of history. So the argument is not just logically dumb, its based on historical ignorance too.
People who refuse to fly planes will be militarily defeated by those who do. What's your argument for WHY it's "moronic" for people to start work at 12 and get married at 15?
It’s moronic to insist that people “should” do this. Is it moronic to do it? The marriage part most definitely yes. People who do this end up poor and unhappy. The work at 12 thing, you can split hairs about what exactly is meant by it, but if it’s work in the sense of “job” then yes, also dumb. There are better uses of people’s time at that age. You know we haven’t had people start work at 12 for like, 150 or 200 years now, and we’ve done pretty well, right? We haven’t had “marry at 15” since like the Bronze Age (the author is just historically ignorant, even as he invokes “historical norms”)
At some point this becomes a non serious conversation and not worth pursuing further. That point may have already been passed.
To the extent you take self-reported happiness seriously, that has gone down https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/power-beats-happinesshtml
At 12 years of age I was required to go to school, which was a massive waste of my time. I learned far more in a much smaller amount of time working. We've "done pretty well" because we're rich enough that we can afford to be wasteful and stupid, like https://www.betonit.ai/p/qatar-and-reverse-causation
Any refusal to recognize that people have different biological clocks, not to mention needs and wants, is deeply stupid.
We can recognize it (no idea why you bring “needs and wants” into this and what it has to do with anything - look like a lame attempt to bolster a weak argument with a bit of straw), but we dont have to be slaves to it. We aren't biologically made for flight. Historically we didn't fly around. Does that mean we should ban airplanes?
It means we shouldn't try to fly by flapping our arms, as that's incompatible with our biology. People who try such a strategy will fail, while humans who get around via walking will generally succeed.
Any refusal to recognize that people are not identical machines with identical wants and needs is deeply stupid. Any pretense of being clever while sneering at such a concept is even deeplier stupid.
Keep strawmaning. I never said anything about people being "identical machines". I said that making an argument based on "biological clocks and historical norms" is dumb.
You said, quote, "no idea why you bring “needs and wants” into this and what it has to do with anything - look like a lame attempt to bolster a weak argument with a bit of straw",
In other words, you sneer at the idea that people are different. Straw or not, huff and puff all you want, but people are not identical.
No i do not "sneer at the idea that people are different". You're just very bad at reading comprehension.
(In fact I agree with the idea and celebrate it - it's just that it's completely irrelevant here)
What is "time poverty?" I think from context it means "time scarcity," but I'm not sure.
I took it to be an academic euphemism for running out of time in the day to do everything you want to do, or think you need to do.
Believing marrying at 15-16 is a good idea should be enough to eradicate the credibility of anything this guy says. Completely out of touch with the reality beyond his cushy office. Prime example of the "leaders" in America's higher education system, and why it sucks.
The German vocational training is pretty ok (not perfect, ofc - and obviously longer than needed; 3-4 years); it is definitely open to higher qualifications, I know several people who went to college after apprenticeship, some even without an "Abitur" (most teens in Germany now stay in school 13 years to get that degree, as it it usu. required to get into our - free - universities).
Great email!!
https://youtu.be/coMXLy8RBIc?si=am8viErTB9jzFfHp
Anyone who thinks that history and civics are useless should be deported. Well maybe not that, but it makes them look ridiculous.
They're not useful enough to make them mandatory. Unless you love promulgating government benevolence.
Anyone who thinks they know what is best for everybody else should be deported as a danger to the public of them turning into politicians or egging them on.