I dunno, I think society is best served by educating as many people as possible. I would much rather live in a world where anyone who wants a quality education can get one.
We should teach people what we expect will be relevant in their lives, which includes basic math, science, government, history, and other subjects. Although some kids still won't learn, we should try. Anyone interested in a particular subject should be able to explore it further, since interest makes it relevant to them. And we should also give people mandatory but brief exposure to many difference fields, in case they become interested.
But at a certain point, you're wasting time and effort trying (and failing) to teach students what they're unlikely to, and ultimately won't, use afterward. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink." Meanwhile, as GP noted, students who are interested in a "quality education" can't get one, because the quality is diminished by number of students, many who aren't interested. In order to provide the best education to the most people, we must optimize; cutting people who aren't learning means we can better educate those who are.
The key is to focus education on actual skill learning, rather than just focussing on exam preparation which is typically learning specific "magic" words and phrases (e.g. "condensation", "the powerhouse of the cell").
Learning specific physics formulas has its place, but learning the principles behind the formulas is far more valuable, though harder to measure.
If there is anything good I hope we can get from AI transformation it's making our approach to education less utilitarian. We should educate ourselves because it's good to be educated, and because it's good to be around educated people, not because education gets you a good job or makes you are more valuable unit in the economy
Or AI will double down in the Dunning Krueger effect, where true mastery not only diminishes, but people collectively take low erfort AI answers as the baseline truth.
Agree - but in the US so much more could and should be done at the primary and secondary level before we even talk about the tertiary one. It's actually pretty good compared to other developed countries but a lot could be gotten out of more investment there.
armchairhacker|4 days ago
But at a certain point, you're wasting time and effort trying (and failing) to teach students what they're unlikely to, and ultimately won't, use afterward. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink." Meanwhile, as GP noted, students who are interested in a "quality education" can't get one, because the quality is diminished by number of students, many who aren't interested. In order to provide the best education to the most people, we must optimize; cutting people who aren't learning means we can better educate those who are.
ndsipa_pomu|4 days ago
Learning specific physics formulas has its place, but learning the principles behind the formulas is far more valuable, though harder to measure.
oytis|4 days ago
DarkNova6|4 days ago
AdamN|4 days ago