Post: #1

It's hardly deniable that modern public schooling is a tool to brainwash children, keep them busy and circumvent the possibility that they could learn to think independently much less unravel the greater truths that surround our societies. To a lesser extent this is also true of private schools, and even home schoolers are trapped to some degree in making sure their children follow the public sector's guidelines, regardless of whether certain subjects are functionally a waste of time.

I would be interested to hear from other members what subjects they think should be taught at secondary school in particular. It could be anything as simple as driving instruction through to more complex but achievable issues like economics.

I would also like to hear what subjects members think these topics should replace on the current curriculum in their area.

Personally I think Home Economics (for example) is a pointless waste of time in this day and age, providing nothing that cannot be learned more proficiently at home. Meanwhile I think there should be a larger focus on business and finance management.

In regards to subjects with political ramifications (history, social studies etc) I think they should be taught broadly and shallowly or not at all lest the school system gained the power to pick and choose obsessions in one area and ignorance in another. Regardless of the situation we find ourselves in I still don't think public schools should be politicised, even with good intentions.

What say ye?

Post: #2

Teach girls knitting, cooking, home making etc.

Teach boys carpentry, maths and sciences.

Post: #3

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. No homework but test at end of year on it.

Would leave us and politics/society about...oh I don't know 5 BILLION PER CENT better off.

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

And for the REEEEEEEEES

Worthless by Aaron Clarey and
Bachelor Pad Economics.

supplemented by some basic accounting spreadsheets.

A red pilled English Teacher is also worth his weight in gold, and do great things with any material as I can attest because I was lucky to have one such rarity. Everybody loved him.

And all of this is self study.

Post: #4

Boys: hunting, fishing, construction, field medicine, combat.

Girls: cooking, cleaning, child rearing.

Post: #5

As a good base: Trivium & Quadrivium.

More sport/exercise, more mundane stuff (eg. cooking... I couldn't even bake a fucking egg when I went living on my own and my parents were to lazy to teach it, eg. finances etc). Perhaps also some general crafts so one can do some DIY tasks at home.

The rest of the curriculum should be filled in by the student with the subjects he finds endearing. For me that would've been history, philosophy and information technology. But it should be self study with minor accompaniment from a decent teacher. So the student can learn what he wants to learn on his own, that is very important imho.

imo of course

Post: #6

I remember from the comments in ROK back in the first year or two of the site, a guy was telling about his high school in the Midwest US, which had a very thorough civic class, that was required for every student. It covered the usual US constitution and US history, but it also focused very strongly on the right of free men to overthrow an oppressive government.

I forget exactly how the commenter said it worked, but every year the students planned an insurrection, and overthrew the principle and the teachers. Now a lot of high schools have a day where the students teach the classes, but this high school actually taught the morality and practical implementation of an insurgency.

I'd include something like this in an intellectually healthy curriculum. Of course, nowadays there would be a risk of the SJWs using this to learn how to implement their totalitarian vision of the future. You'd have to make sure the civics class had a strong focus on personal liberty and limited government.

Post: #7

When it comes to education, structure is more important than content. It is more important to have a structure that facilitates efficient and student-driven learning rather than to focus on having the right subjects.

The modern educational system is outdated. This is the 21st century, we have Wikipedia, YouTube, and the rest of the internet. The school system may be necessary for research and specialized training, but it is NOT necessary for learning, provided the student is sufficiently motivated.

Most mainstream thinking about education is top-down: How do we make sure students learn the topics required to pass the class and earn their degrees? e.g. I've seen university classes that had pop quizzes just to force students to come to class, because otherwise students would just skip classes and take the final exam. Ultimately, such a system teaches conformity and subservience, regardless of the topic being taught. In fact, I contend that modern education is fundamentally anti-male because of its top-down, conformist nature, even if you remove things like female teachers and SJW ideology from the equation.

A better format would be to show the student things that piques his interest. Or give him some kind of mission or goal. Then, point him to materials that help him learn more about those things or reach that goal. This puts him in the driver's seat and prepares him to be a self-motivated, critical thinking man rather than a cog in the system who just takes orders from above.

Some critics might ask, can a student learn through self learning better than a from a teacher? There's a big difference between being able to pass exams and actually understanding the topic. I took quantum physics in college due to the requirements of my degree, and I got good grades in the class. I was able to do homework problems and tests because I was good at solving math equations. But I had no overarching understanding of the topic. I forgot all of it because I had no mental framework to retain it. What a waste of time and effort. It wasn't until I watched the movie Interstellar that I actually took an interest in the topic and started reading more about it and watching YouTube videos. Today I understand quantum mechanics a lot better, even though I don't remember anything about those equations.

Post: #8

(05-30-2018 08:17 AM)Pride male Wrote:  Teach girls knitting, cooking, home making etc.

Teach boys carpentry, maths and sciences.

Stop it you sexist pig! Your post is absolutely disgusting.

Instead, let's teach 60% of each class carpentry, math and science (Group A) and 40% of each class home-making skills (Group B).

The decision as to who is in each group will be determined by a no-holds-barred boxing tournament at the end of grade 7. The top 60% goes in Group A and the weak pansy asses go in Group B.

Of course, both boys and girls will participate in the same tournament, because anything else would be sexist.

Post: #9

Y'all talk like tailors, bakers and such are only and have only been female professions.

Post: #10

   

Post: #11

Old school:
Greek and Latin
Homer
Poetry
Rhetoric
History
Moral philosophy

Throw in some math, science, and logic

Post: #12

Mathematics...as the queen of all sciences!
Physics
Literature...from Homer to Renaissance
Integrate more sports and physical activities...make them fun but also introduce a winner's mentality (get rid of trophies for participation)
Basic mechanics
Cooking

Post: #13

(05-30-2018 09:10 AM)cascadecombo Wrote:  Y'all talk like tailors, bakers and such are only and have only been female professions.

Funnily enough, the best of all those have been mostly men in our history. So what can women do better than men?

Post: #14

The best take I have heard on this came from John Taylor Gatto, a former award winning NYC teacher who quit teaching and started investigating what was wrong with education and what to do about it.

On of the things he did was look into the elite private schools to see if what they taught was different from the public schools, and what he found was not only was it different, superior, and exclusive, but that it was something that could be taught to anyone for very little money and prepared a person so much better than the dumbing down in public schools.

Basic principles here:

https://tragedyandhope.com/th-films/the-...urriculum/

Quote:John Taylor Gatto’s 14 Themes of the Elite Private School Curriculum (as listed in part in The Ultimate History Lesson)


1. A theory of human nature (as embodied in history, philosophy, theology, literature and law).

2. Skill in the active literacies (writing, public speaking).

3. Insight into the major institutional forms (courts, corporations, military, education).

4. Repeated exercises in the forms of good manners and politeness; based on the truth that politeness and civility are the foundation of all future relationships, all future alliances, and access to places that you might want to go.

5. Independent work.

6. Energetic physical sports are not a luxury, or a way to “blow off steam,” but they are absolutely the only way to confer grace on the human presence, and that that grace translates into power and money later on. Also, sports teach you practice in handling pain, and in dealing with emergencies.

7. A complete theory of access to any place and any person.

8. Responsibility as an utterly essential part of the curriculum; always to grab responsibility when it is offered and always to deliver more than is asked for.

9. Arrival at a personal code of standards (in production, behavior and morality).

10. To have a familiarity with, and to be at ease with, the fine arts. (cultural capital)

11. The power of accurate observation and recording. For example, sharpen the perception by being able to draw accurately.

12. The ability to deal with challenges of all sorts.

13. A habit of caution in reasoning to conclusions.

14. The constant development and testing of prior judgements: you make judgements, you discriminate value, and then you follow up and “keep an eye” on your predictions to see how far skewed, or how consistent, your predictions were.

Video here:





As you can see, this is as much about a personal philosophy of life as it is about subject matter.

He came to similar conclusions in his own teaching, although he had to break rules and sometimes the law to get his students educated. He started with what they were passionate about, and then sent them out, alone, into NYC to research it, and got them to turn their hobbies and interests into serious concerns.

He might have a girl who liked swimming, and so he sent her out to as many public swimming pools as she could get to, had her learn about the chemicals in the water, and what was safe, what was not, had her measure the chemicals in all the pools to find the best ones to swim in, and then write up a report, and then explained to her that her research, as a 14 year old was more valuable than anything the city had, and helped her sell her report to the city for big bucks.

His whole goal was to get the kids out and about and learning all the practical aspects of the things they were interested in, to get them entrepreneurial, to get them able to talk to adults and be respected.

More than that, he found this worked with ghetto kids as well as silver spoon ones, and the only drawback was that he had to be subversive and break laws to get it done, and there was no room for it in modern education as it stands.

Anyone who wants to do some deep background, and has a lot of spare time, should listen to this, a video that changed my own thoughts about education in many ways:






My personal thoughts on all this are that a superior education would involve reading the classics in many disciplines, and these books may be had for pennies!

Find a good teacher and motivated parents, and that is the key, not money or technology.

What would a kid learn more from, the latest iPad offerings, or getting an old Pentium computer and figuring out a way to make Linux work on it?

There is no cost involved to the best education possible.

There are tons of inspirational stories out there of people who used their noodle and the resources available to them to achieve great things in educating themselves and the people around them.

Like this one:

https://www.wired.com/2002/05/from-junki...l-junkman/

Quote:OAKLAND, California – James Burgett is a big, burly biker and an ex-heroin junkie who is building a trash empire from recycled computers.

He has hooked together a cluster of junk machines into what may soon qualify as one of the world's fastest supercomputers.

And he's a leading low-tech philanthropist, giving away thousands of refurbished computers to disadvantaged people all over the world, from human rights organizations in Guatemala to the hard-up Russian space program.

Burgett runs the Alameda County Computer Resource Center, which he has built from a spare bedroom operation into one of the largest non-profit computer recycling centers in the United States.

The business of building new computers may be in a downturn, but the business of getting rid of old ones is booming. There are more computers heading for landfill than are being sold, according to the California Materials Exchange.

A group of parents could get together and hire a retired college professor to educate their kids, and he would probably cherish a retirement spent in the presence of people who actually wanted to learn.

That's where I would start, with Gatto, and modify it to suit the individual needs.

Post: #15

I mean, private school has always been superior in my experience. Most of my life has been in public schools, but the short time I have explored one, it felt a lot more like they cared for you there. I can only imagine what my life would be life if I had went through one fully. Public school was easy for me, and I often got bored, so something like a private education could have challenged me. Oh well.

Post: #16

Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I have to say just teach in the Socratic method. Make people draw their own conclusions by relentlessly questioning them.

Post: #17

I forgot the name of that movie with Kevin Kline, where he teaches an all-boys private school. But it was a pretty good representation of how kids, and especially boys, should be taught.

Great movie too

Post: #18

I would add the principles of John Taylor Gatto, then add the following:

1) Gender separated schools
2) Red Pill being taught to both boys and girls starting age 14 - backed up by evolutionary psychology. Teach boys Game. Teach girls the lifecycle of her beauty, top sexual market value and also the psychological hangups if she decides to bang many men.
3) Teach mnemonic techniques and additional mental training like mind-maps, visualizations, concentration techniques - if the CIA trains their agents that way, then why not include it in the general population - of course it's clear, because a dump people or one using their brains in a less efficient way is much better to the ruling elite.

Aside from that men like Gatto or Charlotte Izerbyt-Thomson should design a good educational program - they are true non-globalist experts on that.

Post: #19

(05-30-2018 04:07 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  2) Red Pill being taught to both boys and girls starting age 14 - backed up by evolutionary psychology. Teach boys Game. Teach girls the lifecycle of her beauty, top sexual market value and also the psychological hangups if she decides to bang many men.

We also need a few token hot female teachers for our sons to bang, to immunize them against the notion of deference to female authority.

Post: #20

The curriculum of Rugby circa Tom Brown's School Days?

Post: #21

(05-30-2018 04:07 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  I would add the principles of John Taylor Gatto, then add the following:

1) Gender separated schools
2) Red Pill being taught to both boys and girls starting age 14 - backed up by evolutionary psychology. Teach boys Game. Teach girls the lifecycle of her beauty, top sexual market value and also the psychological hangups if she decides to bang many men.
3) Teach mnemonic techniques and additional mental training like mind-maps, visualizations, concentration techniques - if the CIA trains their agents that way, then why not include it in the general population - of course it's clear, because a dump people or one using their brains in a less efficient way is much better to the ruling elite.

Aside from that men like Gatto or Charlotte Izerbyt-Thomson should design a good educational program - they are true non-globalist experts on that.

If you really want to go full Darwin we could just arm preschoolers and instruct them to take out their weaker classmates.

This is one way to weed out the future soy boys and potential feminist. If you ever hung out with a little kid you'll notice they are surprisingly honest and fucking ruthless.

Teacher: Sorry Jan, your son Tommy is dead, Albert's son Albert Jr. saw him picking his nose alone in the corner after eating glue so he decided to do a mercy killing and take him out.

Post: #22

(05-30-2018 07:46 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  It's hardly deniable that modern public schooling is a tool to brainwash children, keep them busy and circumvent the possibility that they could learn to think independently much less unravel the greater truths that surround our societies. To a lesser extent this is also true of private schools, and even home schoolers are trapped to some degree in making sure their children follow the public sector's guidelines, regardless of whether certain subjects are functionally a waste of time.

I would be interested to hear from other members what subjects they think should be taught at secondary school in particular. It could be anything as simple as driving instruction through to more complex but achievable issues like economics.

I would also like to hear what subjects members think these topics should replace on the current curriculum in their area.

Personally I think Home Economics (for example) is a pointless waste of time in this day and age, providing nothing that cannot be learned more proficiently at home. Meanwhile I think there should be a larger focus on business and finance management.

In regards to subjects with political ramifications (history, social studies etc) I think they should be taught broadly and shallowly or not at all lest the school system gained the power to pick and choose obsessions in one area and ignorance in another. Regardless of the situation we find ourselves in I still don't think public schools should be politicised, even with good intentions.

What say ye?

   

Post: #23

(05-30-2018 11:37 AM)Dulceácido Wrote:  Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I have to say just teach in the Socratic method. Make people draw their own conclusions by relentlessly questioning them.

That only works if they aren't retarded. Unfortunately, maïeutics is too subtle for most folk, despite being used in every classroom in college.

Post: #24

(05-30-2018 04:55 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 11:37 AM)Dulceácido Wrote:  Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I have to say just teach in the Socratic method. Make people draw their own conclusions by relentlessly questioning them.

That only works if they aren't retarded. Unfortunately, maïeutics is too subtle for most folk, despite being used in every classroom in college.

Nature or nurture? Are most people unable to handle it because they just haven't been exposed to it enough, or are they fundamentally incapable of wrapping their heads around it?

I think it's easy to find everyday examples of things to intellectually wrestle with and ask tough questions. Maybe most people just aren't comfortable with peeling back the layers of the social reality that we take for granted, and peering into the raw code of the matrix underneath, figuratively speaking. Maybe that's what got Socrates killed.

But maybe it's possible to get kids to think about it before they accumulate too many preconceived notions.

Post: #25

(05-30-2018 04:55 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

(05-30-2018 11:37 AM)Dulceácido Wrote:  Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I have to say just teach in the Socratic method. Make people draw their own conclusions by relentlessly questioning them.

That only works if they aren't retarded. Unfortunately, maïeutics is too subtle for most folk, despite being used in every classroom in college.

That's why it's imperative for people to learn pre-socratic philosophy at an early age.

Not trying to brag and for the record don't consider myself a genius or anything so don't take what I'm about to write the wrong way. I was actually considered a child prodigy in mathematics. I was not famous but I was put on a bus in 2nd grade and taken to the high school for algebra classes. By the time I was in high school I was taking graduate school level physics courses at the university near where I grew up.

I actually think I was not that smart in math specifically, I was more likely very good at logic which flowed into STEM subjects. I was also diagnosed learning disabled in English ((writing) specifically)) but my reading comprehension skills were maybe a bit above average for my age. Interestingly I excelled in my Russian language courses when I was young. Some teachers thought I might be an idiot savant. Mostly I think because the teachers that did not like me were teachers that were bad at teaching their chosen subjects and I failed to see the logic in their ideas.

My father and mother both have PhD's although my father was a Lawyer. My mothers PhD is actually in early childhood education with a specific focus on k-12 curriculum. My dad actually force fed me pre-socractic philosophy when I was very little to explain things to me. He was obsessed with early linguistics and Latin. There is a home video of me when I was a baby making sounds and my dad was trying to teach me how to communicate my needs using hash marks on a mini blackboard. I ended up starting to speak at age 2.

Eventually my peers all caught up to me in math and physics when I got into college. In fact I have several friends that were never considered prodigies that have gone on to do things in Physics I don't understand.

My point is interlocutor as it pertains to maieutique is highly fixed within the practitioners upbringing. It's actually a good argument for the damage boys receive being raised by single mothers or households with weak father figures. They are likely to not develop their logical senses and learn to get what they want by expressing their emotions which children usually start expressing through temper-tantrums. I guess girls also lose in this as well.