Pastelland Forum

Redafro wrote:

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

It seems that's the case, but if my theory doesn't say that...

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.)

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.

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?

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.

@Taalit: Yes, it's Mixed, but not in the sense of all kinds of economic philosophies taking place.

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.

So the teacher's version of a technocracy, but only in that section of the cabinet? What I'm trying to say is a teacher-run form of what the Government's molding them into - The teachers decide for themselves what the school system should be like. Has that been tried before?

It seems that's the case, but if my theory doesn't say that...

Doesn't matter, I'd say it's still a valid Theory

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.

Oh, that was you...XD

Sure, there's a possibility, but why would it be a King from History? Unless Mateusz is creating some sort of an alternate history.

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.

Perhaps the flora and fauna grew after the Core began to collapse - We don't know how much time's passed, and it seems they're fairly new plants, no overgrown vines. Except for the big tree with the marking, but that could be part of the Winter Garden, we're not sure if that's Karma-based.

Perhaps the Computer and the Infestation Map are two seperate programs - The Computer created the mutations, the Infestation Map program isn't involved with the computer and was created after the humans became an infestation.

Rooster5man wrote:So the teacher's version of a technocracy, but only in that section of the cabinet? What I'm trying to say is a teacher-run form of what the Government's molding them into - The teachers decide for themselves what the school system should be like. Has that been tried before?

Well, the government's role in all that is to finance it and distribute resources between schools. The government shouldn't meddle with what is being taught nor should the schools get too intimate with the financiers: that'd get close to corruption. (Also, teachers are experts of education not law). Obviously discourse will take place so that these things can be coordinated, but that is another matter.

Why would it be a King from History? Unless Mateusz is creating some sort of an alternate history.

I feel safe in saying that it isn't too. I added it as a spur of the moment thing really. It seemed like an interesting trivia point.

Perhaps the Computer and the Infestation Map are two seperate programs - The Computer created the mutations, the Infestation Map program isn't involved with the computer and was created after the humans became an infestation.

The idea of two separate programs seems plausible and that would explain the creation of the edge for instance. You rather missed my point, though, which was "why humans"? Why not flora and fauna?

Well, the government's role in all that is to finance it and distribute resources between schools. The government shouldn't meddle with what is being taught nor should the schools get too intimate with the financiers: that'd get close to corruption. (Also, teachers are experts of education not law). Obviously discourse will take place so that these things can be coordinated, but that is another matter.

I understand that much, but what do you propose - What I was saying, with the teacher-built school system? I mean it can't be any worse than what public schools are like now, I suppose. What Obama proposed is what I really wish I got: Having to come out of High School with a Diploma, as well as an Associate's Degree in Engineering, rather than spend another two years and a whole lot of money to do so.

I feel safe in saying that it isn't too. I added it as a spur of the moment thing really. It seemed like an interesting trivia point.

That's alright, you don't have to delete it, it was curious though.

The idea of two separate programs seems plausible and that would explain the creation of the edge for instance. You rather missed my point, though, which was "why humans"? Why not flora and fauna?

Oh, I didn't quite get that part. From this:

That still begs the question of why is there so little flora and fauna visible in the net.

I thought you were asking about the timeline, not "Why is the Infestation focused only on the humans?"

Perhaps flora and fauna aren't as damaging to the SubNet as humans pose to be.

Back to the whole public school discussion and some what has been said the past few pages, I was reminded of this:



And on a sidenote, it made me think: There seems to be a difference between Reading Level and Understanding Level.

In Grade school, you're judged by your reading level, but reading's different from comprehending what you're reading.

I remember that was how my view of reading was until recently: I saw words on a page, it never interested me. And that's what needs to be improved upon.

Sure, the schools tried to convey that meaning, but, sadly, it seems my 11th grade English teacher got the point across better than in grade school.

Rooster5man wrote:

Well, the government's role in all that is to finance it and distribute resources between schools. The government shouldn't meddle with what is being taught nor should the schools get too intimate with the financiers: that'd get close to corruption. (Also, teachers are experts of education not law). Obviously discourse will take place so that these things can be coordinated, but that is another matter.

I understand that much, but what do you propose - What I was saying, with the teacher-built school system? I mean it can't be any worse than what public schools are like now, I suppose. What Obama proposed is what I really wish I got: Having to come out of High School with a Diploma, as well as an Associate's Degree in Engineering, rather than spend another two years and a whole lot of money to do so.

Well, at least in Finland you have the possibility of doing that (or more specifically simultaneously study the programs of vocational and upper secondary schools - our school systems are vastly different), although only a select few take advantage of that possibility - I belong to the majority here, sadly.

I firmly believe that teacher built system would work, because of reasons stated previously. Really, it is how I'd like to see most systems organized. It is pretty close to what is happening in Finland, although the government has certain restrictions, mostly budgetwise, forcing smaller schools to merge etc.

On the issue of money: that should not be a thing. Education should be free for the students, for the same reason of equality I just brought up. If someone is forced to take a loan for education but someone else isn't, then the system is dead wrong.

Well, at least in Finland you have the possibility of doing that (or more specifically simultaneously study the programs of vocational and upper secondary schools - our school systems are vastly different), although only a select few take advantage of that possibility - I belong to the majority here, sadly.

I could've done the same and go to a vocational school part-time, but I was afraid of missing out on my classes - I wanted to take a lot of extra stuff, like History. Why don't you take advantage of that?

I firmly believe that teacher built system would work, because of reasons stated previously. Really, it is how I'd like to see most systems organized. It is pretty close to what is happening in Finland, although the government has certain restrictions, mostly budgetwise, forcing smaller schools to merge etc.

On the issue of money: that should not be a thing. Education should be free for the students, for the same reason of equality I just brought up. If someone is forced to take a loan for education but someone else isn't, then the system is dead wrong.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but where does the money coming from then? Of course, your taxes, but it seems here that politicians and some people are so afraid of this system - they believe it to be Communism all over again - that nothing ever gets done about it and most of us end up having to take out loans.

Rooster5man wrote: I could've done the same and go to a vocational school part-time, but I was afraid of missing out on my classes - I wanted to take a lot of extra stuff, like History. Why don't you take advantage of that?

A big reason is sloth really (ironically I've taken 16 more courses than necessary to pass), but another is that I've always wanted a profession that is something akin to a teacher or a researcher, and in here that is a path of academia, while vocational studies of the same level (engineers, nurses, etc.) are on a completely different branch of education - polytechnics to be exact. Ergo, I never really saw a reason to do a double diploma.

I firmly believe that teacher built system would work, because of reasons stated previously. Really, it is how I'd like to see most systems organized. It is pretty close to what is happening in Finland, although the government has certain restrictions, mostly budgetwise, forcing smaller schools to merge etc.

On the issue of money: that should not be a thing. Education should be free for the students, for the same reason of equality I just brought up. If someone is forced to take a loan for education but someone else isn't, then the system is dead wrong.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but where does the money coming from then? Of course, your taxes, but it seems here that politicians and some people are so afraid of this system - they believe it to be Communism all over again - that nothing ever gets done about it and most of us end up having to take out loans.

Yeah, the USA has a weird relationship with the taxes as far as I know. I don't see why exactly do they feel that way. To be frank I feel someone just ought to wake them up. Not a single one of the Nordic countries is Communist and we're loving our system. Of course I know that it works differently in the, just like it works differently in the Mediterranean. To be actually constructive, why don't you cut something else, like the military budget, which I understand is almost double that of the rest of the world. That would require no raising of the taxes even!

A big reason is sloth really (ironically I've taken 16 more courses than necessary to pass), but another is that I've always wanted a profession that is something akin to a teacher or a researcher, and in here that is a path of academia, while vocational studies of the same level (engineers, nurses, etc.) are on a completely different branch of education - polytechnics to be exact. Ergo, I never really saw a reason to do a double diploma.

Oh, I see your point - When studying for the educational field, it's better to be immersed in that field rather than branching off into a vocational study.

Still, I'm sure not everybody wants to become a teacher, so it's sad how that's a wasted resource.

Yeah, the USA has a weird relationship with the taxes as far as I know. I don't see why exactly do they feel that way. To be frank I feel someone just ought to wake them up. Not a single one of the Nordic countries is Communist and we're loving our system. Of course I know that it works differently in the, just like it works differently in the Mediterranean. To be actually constructive, why don't you cut something else, like the military budget, which I understand is almost double that of the rest of the world.

(I noticed you fixed your weird quote )

Don't ever bring up "cut" and "military" to a right-wingist here...Especially after 9/11.

Also, I see the practicality in one aspect: Military budget being spent on Veteran Affairs. Other than that, I completely agree.

Rooster5man wrote:Still, I'm sure not everybody wants to become a teacher, so it's sad how that's a wasted resource.

True, although I can sympathize: school at secondary level is pretty challenging. To do two at a time is a intimidating task.

But when your future's on the line, it shouldn't matter.