Your Opinion on Socialism

[TheRealJuliane]

Possibly the greatest thing government has ever done…for government. Not quite so great for the citizens. There are many, many good reasons the number of parents homeschooling their children continues to grow. Public education “teaches” children to wait in line, do busy work, move around when the bell rings, raise their hand to be called on, not think about science in math class or math in science class, and not to ask questions that don’t have answers in the answer key. That sounds pretty harsh. That’s because the system is pretty harsh. The goal isn’t intelligent, thinking citizens. The desired product is obedient, dumbed down serfs.

Pax.

I’m sure you know where we adopted our public education from, but in case someone else needs the info., it came from Germany. Very Germanic in structure and nature, and has worked to train people to work in factory jobs, but isn’t working any longer. When I did substitute teaching it drove me crazy just how broken up the day was. We couldn’t get anywhere since it was always time to “put your books away and it’s time for music class,” or some such. All of the day was just little smatterings of this and that. It was awful. And both of my sons have never learned to simply THINK and love learning for its own sake, not in all their years of private education. They have learned how to PRODUCE a result, for a grade, but not to really and truly THINK clearly and logically.

If I had it to do over, I would definitely home school all the way through.

 

[jwder09]

Nonesense! The richman did not ask to be an apostle but to be part of the Kingdom of God. Jesus said that in order for him to be part of the Kingdom of God he had to sell off all his wealth and then follow Christ. Yes Jesus gave him a choice, the choice was heaven or hell and the man chose his wealth at the expense of his soul! Hence it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle then it is a richman into heaven. What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? In contrast, you have the choice not to pay your taxes, you can choose jail instead.

Peace,

David

I grant you, this was a poor example of what I attempted to illustrate.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I’m sure you know where we adopted our public education from, but in case someone else needs the info., it came from Germany. Very Germanic in structure and nature, and has worked to train people to work in factory jobs, but isn’t working any longer. When I did substitute teaching it drove me crazy just how broken up the day was. We couldn’t get anywhere since it was always time to “put your books away and it’s time for music class,” or some such. All of the day was just little smatterings of this and that. It was awful. And both of my sons have never learned to simply THINK and love learning for its own sake, not in all their years of private education. They have learned how to PRODUCE a result, for a grade, but not to really and truly THINK clearly and logically.

If I had it to do over, I would definitely home school all the way through.

You are quite correct. Our educational system is modeled on the Kaiser’s Germany. Educational “pioneers” also saw government schools as essential for stripping the Catholic faith out of all the immigrant children.

Pax

 

[davidmlamb]

You are quite correct. Our educational system is modeled on the Kaiser’s Germany. Educational “pioneers” also saw government schools as essential for stripping the Catholic faith out of all the immigrant children.

Pax

Why all the attack on public schools? Public schools work well in other industrialized countries and are producing well educated kids in math and science. In Japan for instance, a high school graduate has one year of calculus, physics, and chemistry when they graduate and they can speak at least 2 languages fluently. This is also the case in every asian country as well as Germany, Sweden and Norway. Canada also has a superior public education system. In Britain not only is their education system superior but they will subsidize a Catholic or Anglican education if that is where you want to send your child. Why can’t we invest in our public education system like this?

David

 

[Dan_Daly]

I will disagree that a student can learn math and science better in a government school then they can in homeschool. Test results support me.

But for the sake of argument, say you are right. I’d still be against government schools. For many reasons. A few:

-it seperates the family, making the child a ward of the state for most each day.
-children learn a lot of OTHER things beyond math and science in school, and there are more important things in life then getting high test scores. Going to heaven being the chief one. If the government school was guaranteed to make my kid into the smartest rocket scientist ever but corrupt his morals, and homeschool would make him into the dumbest dog catcher ever (no offense intended to dog catchers) and set him on a path to holiness…I would homeschool in a second.

 

[JRKH]

Regarding the “Jesus was a socialist” school of thought:

The Church has always taught that there are TWO kinds of communism.

1. Voluntary Communism. This is when people voluntary share all that they have in community. This is what the early Church did that we hear about in acts. It’s also something we see in a monastic setting. This is perfectly fine, and can lead to the growth of great virtue.
2. Involuntary Communism. This is when people are FORCED to give up their property that it might be redistributed among others. This is what we see in communist countries like the USSR, China, etc. The Church condemns this form of communism as evil.

Pax

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I will disagree that a student can learn math and science better in a government school then they can in homeschool. Test results support me.

But for the sake of argument, say you are right. I’d still be against government schools. For many reasons. A few:

-it seperates the family, making the child a ward of the state for most each day.
-children learn a lot of OTHER things beyond math and science in school, and there are more important things in life then getting high test scores. Going to heaven being the chief one. If the government school was guaranteed to make my kid into the smartest rocket scientist ever but corrupt his morals, and homeschool would make him into the dumbest dog catcher ever (no offense intended to dog catchers) and set him on a path to holiness…I would homeschool in a second.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::yup:



Institutional schooling actually kills the desire to learn independently. It pounds into children’s heads that learning only takes place in a building called “school,” and they are too burned out to continue learning once they return home. That is why homework can be such a battle, and why trying to add to the school day with home lessons just does not work.

I know from experience that actual learning in an average school day adds up to about 1 hour’s worth, maybe as much as 2 hours if you’re lucky. 1 hour out of a 7 or 8 hour day! A home schooled student who set to it, could do much more intensive work in 3 hours a day, and be a lot farther along than his or her peers in institutional school. And still have time for other pursuits such as music, sports, or independent learning (science, nature, sports). Without all the interruptions and unnecessary busy work, one can get a lot of actual work done.

 

[minkymurph]

I will disagree that a student can learn math and science better in a government school then they can in homeschool. Test results support me.

But for the sake of argument, say you are right. I’d still be against government schools. For many reasons. A few:

-it seperates the family, making the child a ward of the state for most each day.
-children learn a lot of OTHER things beyond math and science in school, and there are more important things in life then getting high test scores. Going to heaven being the chief one. If the government school was guaranteed to make my kid into the smartest rocket scientist ever but corrupt his morals, and homeschool would make him into the dumbest dog catcher ever (no offense intended to dog catchers) and set him on a path to holiness…I would homeschool in a second.

Is it not fair to say that is depends on the school, and who is teaching them at home whether or not a student will learn better?

School does separate a child from the family. However, school allows many parents to work and contribute to the economy. School also develops social skills, enables students to function in groups, and evaluate opinions from perspectives other than that of their parents - all of which are necessary life skills. I would share your concerns in relation to some schools, and there are schools in my area I would be not be happy for my children to attend them. However, sooner of later they will encounter the corrupt morals of the world and need to be prepared for it.

I agree that children need to learn things others than math and science, and education is about much more than exam results. Unfortunately, the education system is structured towards exam results rather than character formation. My children attend a Catholic school so I know my beliefs and concept of morality will be reinforced at school. However, in my part of the world Catholic schools are mostly funded by the state. Therefore, I have that choice. I appreciate other people don’t.

 

[Dan_Daly]

However, school allows many parents to work and contribute to the economy.

I look dimly on the benefits of “allowing” more parents to work outside the home. I’d also say a parent who stays at home is still very much contributing to the economy. More importantly their contributing to the salvation of their children.

Pax.

 

[minkymurph]

:clapping::clapping::clapping::yup:



Institutional schooling actually kills the desire to learn independently. It pounds into children’s heads that learning only takes place in a building called “school,” and they are too burned out to continue learning once they return home. That is why homework can be such a battle, and why trying to add to the school day with home lessons just does not work.

Institutional schooling can kill the desire to learn independently. One of the things they have tried to change in my part of the world is the idea that learning only takes place in school. One thing they have done is try to involve parents in their children’s education and establish a great rapport between home and school. However, what’s one of the methods they use to address the problem? Homework!!! Every parent HATES it!

As you say, your kids come home burned out from learning, they want to play and rightly so, but it’s books out and homework. A lot of parents don’t get home 'till late. They have dinner to make, housework to do and by the time it comes to homework, they are tired, the kids are tired and as you say, it’s an uphill battle. How much learning takes place in that kind of environment? I raised this point with my son’s teacher and told him that I end up practically doing it for him to get it done and out of the way. His response was, ‘we know homework is assisted, but it’s school policy to set ‘x’ amount of homework per week and as a teacher in this school, I’m obliged to adhere to that policy.’ In addition, childminders often complete homework with kids and it depends how good they are how it’s done. My biggest gripe with the school is certainly homework. I’ve taught in schools
and if it was up to me, I would ban homework.

I know from experience that actual learning in an average school day adds up to about 1 hour’s worth, maybe as much as 2 hours if you’re lucky. 1 hour out of a 7 or 8 hour day! A home schooled student who set to it, could do much more intensive work in 3 hours a day, and be a lot farther along than his or her peers in institutional school. And still have time for other pursuits such as music, sports, or independent learning (science, nature, sports). Without all the interruptions and unnecessary busy work, one can get a lot of actual work done.

You are absolutely right. In Post-Primary schools here the average lesson length is 35 minutes. By the time you get them in, settle them, explain what they have to do, half you’re lessons gone. Then you have to re-cap at the end. It’s surprising how little you get done. It has also been established that the average adult has an attention span of 20 minutes at a time. Younger children would have a much shorter attention span.

The school system is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I do think the education system needs re-structured. However, there are benefits to learning in groups and from peers and other adults. In addition, as my children attend a Catholic school they learn they are part of a faith community, and the school promotes the ethos that education and faith are not an individual experiences that happen in isolation. While parents are the primary educators, the entire faith community shares responsibility for educating children. They also encourage older children to take responsibility for younger one’s by operating a ‘buddy’ system and peer mentoring. I’m very grateful for a 10 year old girl who looks after my 7 year old son who is autistic in the dinner hall.

 

[minkymurph]

I look dimly on the benefits of “allowing” more parents to work outside the home. I’d also say a parent who stays at home is still very much contributing to the economy. More importantly their contributing to the salvation of their children.

Pax.

I take your point. However, in my part of the world not many parents have the luxury of being able to stay at home.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Hi guys! What’s your opinion on social democracy? On socialism in general? Also, what is the relationship between our faith and this ideology (opinions of theologians, popes, or apologists; statements from the catechism, papal encyclicals, etc.)?

This question is for Catholics and non-Catholics (for the non-Catholics, what do your leaders and teachings say?)

Thanks guys

It should be noted that many people do not consider socialism = social democracy. Just sayin’.

I think socialism as an ideology is purely evil and has is destined to fail because it works in the direct opposite that people do. People are not inherently socialistic. They cannot really conceive of sharing everything communally, and getting back much less than what we put in.

And Jesus never proclaimed socialism, no matter how much certain leftists try to make that point.

 

[minkymurph]

It should be noted that many people do not consider socialism = social democracy. Just sayin’.

I think socialism as an ideology is purely evil and has is destined to fail because it works in the direct opposite that people do. People are not inherently socialistic. They cannot really conceive of sharing everything communally, and getting back much less than what we put in.

And Jesus never proclaimed socialism, no matter how much certain leftists try to make that point.

I don’t think Jesus promoted any political system in favor of another.

I would agree that socialism works in the direct opposite that people do, and people are not inherently socialistic. Human nature is often selfish and in the affluent west, we do live in a ‘me first, me and mine, ‘every man for himself’ (or woman for herself) ‘mine and your not getting any of it’ culture.’ Living as part of a community, sharing and consideration of the needs of others are things that need to be learned, because they are contrary to human nature.

As for getting back much less than we put in, can the same not be said of capitalism? Is it not true to say that a feature of capitalism is getting back more from others than you put in - as in deriving financial gain from the efforts of others with minimal imput? For reasons mentioned above.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I don’t think Jesus promoted any political system in favor of another.

I would agree that socialism works in the direct opposite that people do, and people are not inherently socialistic. ** Human nature is often selfish and in the affluent west, we do live in a ‘me first, me and mine, ‘every man for himself’ (or woman for herself) ‘mine and your not getting any of it’ culture.’ Living as part of a community, sharing and consideration of the needs of others are things that need to be learned, because they are contrary to human nature. **

As for getting back much less than we put in, can the same not be said of capitalism? Is it not true to say that a feature of capitalism is getting back more from others than you put in - as in deriving financial gain from the efforts of others with minimal imput? For reasons mentioned above.

I disagree (didn’t you know I would?? ). God created us, yes, we are a fallen people, but so much in society influences the direction we turn in. But just the way you state this, “Me first, me and mine,” as if that is somehow a bad thing…To me, that is what we as Christians are supposed to do, to take care of ourselves, and our families, without depending upon others for sustenance. After we have done that, through our OWN labor, not from taking others’ fruits for our own, then we share our bounty with others. We reach out to help others. Christians are generous because we know where our blessings come from. Non-Christians (who may call themselves Christians but who are humanists) do not give for the most part because they believe they themselves are the reason they have blessings. Or perhaps they think the blessings actually do come from government. The USA has been and continues to be the most generous nation, out of our bounty we have always reached out to help other nations. Some would say we have helped too much. I do not think so, but I think our government should not redistribute our money for us. We should decide what we wish to support and assist with. And charity is 180 from government slavery (the dole). When I contribute to a charity, or give directly to an individual, there is an immediate social contract between that person and myself. He or she feels the obligation to repay me or to pass along the blessing. With a government hand-out, there is no such social contract and so the person take without giving back. That kills the pride of a man, and all sorts of social evils arise from men with no pride.

Your statements are lightly anti-corporate. Do you really think that someone built a corporation that is successful with minimal effort or (name removed by moderator)ut? Do you know anything about starting a business or keeping it going? All corporations started with an idea, and that idea had to be made into a reality by one person or a small group of people, doing a HE!! of a lot of work in the early days. Anti-capitalists somehow overlook this and think that successful corporations just spring up from nothing, I guess. Corporations employ people! If we had no corporations, who would employ anyone? All the “revenue” that the government wants would not be forthcoming. (I love it that the administration is again using the word “revenue,” it echoes back to the 1930’s so beautifully.)

For over 30 years, education has been focused on how evil the Western world has been. I for one am totally fed up with this. Enough already! How is this working to help anyone? The radical environmentalists, supposedly the “Good Guys,” managed to remove DDT from use in Africa when there was no evidence that it caused any of the dire consequences Rachel Carson’s hysterical book “Silent Spring” reported. So millions, MILLIONS of Africans DIED from malaria. Yet somehow that is still seen as a good thing? Drilling for oil is a process of bringing up one of the earth’s NATURAL PRODUCTS for our use, yet somehow that is seen as wrong and bad? God told us to use the earth and its bounty for our good and for His glory. The 3 Mile Island “accident” caused NO radiation to leak and yet the incident has been used to shut down nuclear power plants and keep new ones from being built for 30 years now! We are hobbling ourselves and keeping developing nations from using this power source as well, under the guise of environmentalism.

I challenge people to really open their eyes to what has happened to the US and to the world over the last 50 years and look at the underlying belief systems. It’s not capitalism that is causing the problems, in fact, our economic system in the US is less capitalistic all the time, and things are getting worse. The practical question is, “Are we better off as a society and is what we are doing working to make us more Godly, or not?”

 

[Dan_Daly]

Living as part of a community, sharing and consideration of the needs of others are things that need to be learned, because they are contrary to human nature.

This is slightly but importantly wrong.

Yes, we do need to learn how to develop the virtues. We learn first and foremost from our parents. The family is the domestic Church. We are also under obligation to inform our consciences to the best of our ability.

What is wrong- virtues are not contrary to human nature. They are the fulfillment of them. When God made us, how did he make us? He made us…good. We have been tainted by original sin, and by our actual sins, but our nature is still…GOOD. That’s why when some one does something kind we say they acted…humanely. And when they do something cruel, we say they were inhumane. If kindness was contrary to human nature, helping an old woman across the street would be a very inhumane act, and mugging her and taking her purse would be humane.

God isn’t calling us to NOT be who we are. He’s calling us to BE who He made us. The interesting thing is that we can’t do anything humane on our own. Yes, our nature is good. The other thing we must understand about our nature is that we are utterly and completely dependent on God for everything. For our very existence. Uniting our will to His is not casting aside our human nature for a new one, it’s living out our human nature the way He designed it to be lived.

Pax

 

[minkymurph]

I disagree (didn’t you know I would?? ). God created us, yes, we are a fallen people, but so much in society influences the direction we turn in. But just the way you state this, “Me first, me and mine,” as if that is somehow a bad thing…To me, that is what we as Christians are supposed to do, to take care of ourselves, and our families, without depending upon others for sustenance. After we have done that, through our OWN labor, not from taking others’ fruits for our own, then we share our bounty with others. We reach out to help others. Christians are generous because we know where our blessings come from. Non-Christians (who may call themselves Christians but who are humanists) do not give for the most part because they believe they themselves are the reason they have blessings. Or perhaps they think the blessings actually do come from government. The USA has been and continues to be the most generous nation, out of our bounty we have always reached out to help other nations. Some would say we have helped too much. I do not think so, but I think our government should not redistribute our money for us. We should decide what we wish to support and assist with. And charity is 180 from government slavery (the dole). When I contribute to a charity, or give directly to an individual, there is an immediate social contract between that person and myself. He or she feels the obligation to repay me or to pass along the blessing. With a government hand-out, there is no such social contract and so the person take without giving back. That kills the pride of a man, and all sorts of social evils arise from men with no pride.

Your post is quite long so if you don’t mind, I’ll respond to it in stages.

Firstly, I used the term ‘me and mine’ in the extreme sense as that is how I understand it. Meaning, ‘me and mine’ to the exclusion of everyone else, no one else matters, I don’t care about anyone else, and ‘everyone else can go and jump because they are not my problem.’ As Christians yes, we should put our own family’s needs first. They are primary responsibility - but not in this extreme sense. I see society becoming more and more insular and sense of community non-existent. I don’t see that as a good thing.

Some Christians are generous, some are not. I can’t comment on government hand-outs to charities within the US. I don’t know enough about it to be able to, and I feel that government that’s a matter for citizens of the US. What I would say is that I don’t think financial hand-outs to developing countries are the answer. They are short term ‘fix,’ a bit like putting a sticking plaster over a gaping wound. They are not a long term answer to the complex difficulties people in those countries face. We have a saying here which is something like - ‘Give a man a pound and he’ll feed his family for a week. Give him a field and he’ll feed his family for a year.’ That’s not exactly how it goes but it something like that.

I agree with should bear the fruits of our OWN labor. What I see more and more today in my part of the world, is people wanting ‘money for old rope’ as they say in my part of the world. To explain, a friend of mine runs art classes for kids. She needed rent premises to rent and in trying to help her, I inquired about a room to rent for art classes above a craft shop. To cut a long story short, they told me that if she charged each client say £10.00, they wanted £3.00. That’s not rent, that’s a percentage of the business which they were putting nothing into - she had to advertise, get clients, take the classes, run the business and the more she earned, the more they wanted in ‘rent.’ To me, that’s not rent, that’s a percentage of the business for use of the facilities. The proprietor wanted her to do all the work - and wanted a percentage of what she made. Now maybe some people think if the more business she generated the more the proprietor was entitled to take. I would say it’s benefiting from the fruits of someone else’s labor and not your own. I hear of hairdresser’s who now ‘rent’ chairs in salons, and personal trainers paying ‘rent’ to work in a gym. Maybe people think it’s a good thing and I’m sure it is for the people who own the premises, but it has created instability in people’s lives. Call me old fashioned but I think if you want someone to work for you, which in effect is what people are doing, you should be paid a fair days wage. Can you imagine if I told a builder he had to pay ‘rent’ to work in my house?

I give to a charity called Trocaire which is not about hand-outs, but empowering people to help themselves and educating them. For example, they have what are called ‘Gift Aid’ cards at Christmas. Instead of buying someone a present, buy a Trocaire gift for them - for example a pig for a family in another country, an olive tree or a school pack. The gifts vary from 10-100 pounds. The idea of it is to help people to help themselves.

 

[minkymurph]

This is slightly but importantly wrong.
What is wrong- virtues are not contrary to human nature. They are the fulfillment of them. When God made us, how did he make us? He made us…good. We have been tainted by original sin, and by our actual sins, but our nature is still…GOOD. That’s why when some one does something kind we say they acted…humanely. And when they do something cruel, we say they were inhumane. If kindness was contrary to human nature, helping an old woman across the street would be a very inhumane act, and mugging her and taking her purse would be humane.

I was referring to the ‘dark’ side of human nature we all have.

 

[minkymurph]

Your statements are lightly anti-corporate. Do you really think that someone built a corporation that is successful with minimal effort or (name removed by moderator)ut? Do you know anything about starting a business or keeping it going? All corporations started with an idea, and that idea had to be made into a reality by one person or a small group of people, doing a HE!! of a lot of work in the early days. Anti-capitalists somehow overlook this and think that successful corporations just spring up from nothing, I guess. Corporations employ people! If we had no corporations, who would employ anyone? All the “revenue” that the government wants would not be forthcoming. (I love it that the administration is again using the word “revenue,” it echoes back to the 1930’s so beautifully.)

I wasn’t actually thinking of corporatism when I posted. What I was referring to was what I explained in my last post. There are so many people I’ve encountered who want to run a ‘business,’ and think running a business entails other people doing all the work while they reap the benefits. However, now that you’ve mentioned corporatism, I’ve seen it destroy many small businesses. Many small businesses in the High Street were I live have gone because they can’t compete with giants like Tesco. Farmers have also suffered because Tesco sell milk so cheap. They are effectively selling it at a loss and then to compensate, Tesco hike the price of everyday items people always buy up. The only winner is Tesco.

Further to this, I would question corporatism in relation to media reporting. For instance, Rupert Murdock controls a global media empire. It’s an known fact that he decides what goes on the front page, and how news is reported. Therefore, what Joe Public hears and reads is controlled by him. Mussolini also tried corporatism and it became incredibly corrupt. I not saying that to associate corporatism with facism, I’m saying it to demonstrate it is vulnerable to corruption, denies freedom of speech and the right of others to earn a living because they can’t compete financially with giants. I could go on an on but I think this is enough on that topic for now.

 

[minkymurph]

For over 30 years, education has been focused on how evil the Western world has been. I for one am totally fed up with this. Enough already! How is this working to help anyone? The radical environmentalists, supposedly the “Good Guys,” managed to remove DDT from use in Africa when there was no evidence that it caused any of the dire consequences Rachel Carson’s hysterical book “Silent Spring” reported. So millions, MILLIONS of Africans DIED from malaria. Yet somehow that is still seen as a good thing? Drilling for oil is a process of bringing up one of the earth’s NATURAL PRODUCTS for our use, yet somehow that is seen as wrong and bad? God told us to use the earth and its bounty for our good and for His glory. The 3 Mile Island “accident” caused NO radiation to leak and yet the incident has been used to shut down nuclear power plants and keep new ones from being built for 30 years now! We are hobbling ourselves and keeping developing nations from using this power source as well, under the guise of environmentalism.

I can’t comment on this because I don’t know anything about it. I don’t know much about the National Curriculum in the US and people in my part of the world are too busy fighting over the issue nationality to be radical environmentalists. My part of the world is supposed to be governed by a coalition. They didn’t sit for 6 months because they weren’t speaking to each other and guess what? No one noticed. Makes you wonder. I can’t say education in this part of the world is focused on how evil the west has been. Perhaps because we have other issues.

I challenge people to really open their eyes to what has happened to the US and to the world over the last 50 years and look at the underlying belief systems. It’s not capitalism that is causing the problems, in fact, our economic system in the US is less capitalistic all the time, and things are getting worse. The practical question is, “Are we better off as a society and is what we are doing working to make us more Godly, or not?”

Again, I can’t comment on what is happening in the US because I’m not informed enough on the topic. As far as I’m concerned, the cause of the recession in this part of the world was good old fashioned greed. Unrestrained capitalism does cause economic problems. We know that from history. However, we don’t seem to learn from history - that’s why it has a nasty habit of repeating itself. In a purely economic sense, some degree of capitalism is needed - even Lenin realized that. I suppose what’s in dispute is how much.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m sure you know where we adopted our public education from, but in case someone else needs the info., it came from Germany. Very Germanic in structure and nature, and has worked to train people to work in factory jobs, but isn’t working any longer. When I did substitute teaching it drove me crazy just how broken up the day was. We couldn’t get anywhere since it was always time to “put your books away and it’s time for music class,” or some such. All of the day was just little smatterings of this and that. It was awful. And both of my sons have never learned to simply THINK and love learning for its own sake, not in all their years of private education. They have learned how to PRODUCE a result, for a grade, but not to really and truly THINK clearly and logically.

If I had it to do over, I would definitely home school all the way through.

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but only somewhat, it would be my observation that American public schools are in need of becoming MORE Prussian, not less, in the sense that disciplined, orderly learning, with consequences for failure, ought to be enhanced.

Public schools’ present failures, in my opinion, are not that they don’t teach children to think, but that they don’t teach children anything at all.

At some point, utilizing knowledge in order to think problems through is exactly what we want from education. But knowledge comes first, just as a carpenter has to have tools before he can start working wood. Our public schools tend to ask students to work wood with their fingernails and teeth, metaphorically speaking.

In my opinion, elementary through high school is a time to learn information. College is the place to also gain information, but to place additional emphasis on putting the thinking process into play.