That's a fair point. However, I'd like to point out that competition implies that you're trying to be better than your peers, who are schools in this case. This further implies that someone is going to be left behind, which is he opposite of what would be nice and moral - not to mention defeats the purpose of education from the governments standpoint as well: to get better educated and more knowledgeable workforce.Redafro wrote:But don't you see? Competitions is what raises standards! You don't get a better football team by training all the teams the same, you have to innovate, to push forward harder, to keep trying, and to never rest on your past accomplishments! Public eduction might mean we all know the same stuff, but it equally means the quality of what we know is potentially equally poor. Now, I do agree with you on your last two points, and I'm fine to some degree with publicly funded competing schools, but there is a larger issue...Choose? Are you kidding me? Would it not be best if schools were all equal? Would that not mean that students can compete equally within the school system, without the stigmata of a "bad school"? If schools have different standards then people are forced to move to get to better schools, which further increases inequality, because not everyone can. Also, schools aren't supposed to raise the children, hence the school the kid goes to should be irrelevant for the child's raising.
Poorly educated people are also more likely to get diseases like diabetes and alcoholism, and they even smoke more. This means the government needs more money to sustain health care, which means it has to cut from somewhere else... It's a vicious cycle. Well, I digress.
I would like to point out that the ones who should drive the school system forward - or decide what it is like - should not be people who have no idea what they're talking about: parents, politicians, investors or even the students. Teachers have studied studying, and their subjects, they can be said to know what is important - they're professionals of teaching. Obviously individual teachers cannot decide to teach whatever they want, they need some restrictions, but the teachers of the nation as a whole should be responsible of creating the guidelines. That should work, because teachers (although they might not all be as good in conveying it) want to teach better and want the students to succeed. Why should the government want this? I think I already answered.
It should be up to the community. I'm actually fine with it not being taught, so long as that is the will of the community.
Obviously I kind of disagree with this from what I just said. Consensus of laymen against the consensus of professional educators... I'd say the winner is clear. Now, obviously the people have a say if a teacher is abusive or something like that but the subjects taught aren't really something they should be able to touch.
After all, if it's science, language or history it is not up to debate, at least not with Jim the Citizen if he has no training in the field - and if someone who has training in the field can point out a legitimate serious flaw then it's clear the system has deep, deep problems to begin with: it was made by other people who have studied the field after all. If it is ethics or religion, then the teachers - coming from the same country as the community as a whole - would form a consensus that is closer to the values of the nation than to the values of a completely different nation. I don't think the religion classes in Japan and USA should (or do) give as much time for Shintoism, for instance.
I think I will not dip my toes into the politics debate, I am not very knowledgeable in American politics, and Finnish politics sounds like anecdotes in comparison.
It seems that's the case, but if my theory doesn't say that...Why can't it be both? The Layers form the Plan just as much as The Plan is the grand scheme of how the Layers are built, isn't it?
I put the kings of France and England in the trivia section, mostly to fill the page, but also as reminders for myself (and others) of the (remote) possibility.I remember reading on the Wiki someone believed the King to be Henry V or something, it seems uncertain to say it's a King from history though (as we both seem to agree on.)
Seems unlikely: the humans are a virus in the machines eyes, remember? Although, maybe the machine hasn't always had such a clear set of protocols. That still begs the question of why is there so little flora and fauna visible in the net.Shot in the dark: The Mutations copied people already living the Layers, Mur met these alternate-dimension clones and used them to get back to the Core?
