Split Thread Does compulsory schooling equate to slavery? (Split from: "Liberal Fallacies" thread)

[Nova Land]

With respect - we've dealt with Mr. Einstein's comments before...

Have we?

Please pardon me for hit-and-run posting. I read the first part of the first page of this thread several weeks ago and was immediately struck by that quote, but did not have time to check through the entire thread to see if it actually had been dealt with. I still haven't had time, and am not likely to for at least several more weeks. But at the time it appeared to me that quote has not actually been dealt with, and I suspect it still hasn't been.

... Albert Einstein

To me the worst thing seems to be for a school principally to work with methods of fear, force and artificial authority. Such treatment destroys the sound sentiments, the sincerity and self-confidence of the pupil. It produces the submissive subject. . . It is comparatively simple to keep the school free from this worst of all evils. Give into the power of the teacher the fewest possible coercive measures, so that the only source of the pupil's respect for the teacher is the human and intellectual qualities of the latter.

Roland Meighan
"Home-based Education Effectiveness Research and Some of its Implications"
Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995

Malcolm is honest enough in that opening post to admit he is not quoting Einstein (whose work on this he likely has never read). He is, as he indicated, quoting from Roland Meighan, whom he has read.

Whether Meighan has actually read Einstein and is deliberately deceiving people such as Malcolm, or whether Meighan is simply passing on an edited version someone passed on to him and is as much a victim of this deception as Malcolm, I don't know. But this is an edited version of the paragraph -- and the editing makes a big difference, since the omitted part directly undercuts the use to which Malcolm is putting it.

The paragraph comes from a 1936 essay "On Education", which can be found in Einstein's book Out of My Later Years. You can read the essay from the beginning starting here, or you can jump directly to the paragraph in question. Here it is with the two omitted sentences restored:

To me the worst thing seems to be for a school principally to work with methods of fear, force and artificial authority. Such treatment destroys the sound sentiments, the sincerity and self-confidence of the pupil. It produces the submissive subject. It is no wonder that such schools are the rule in Germany and Russia. I know that the schools in this country are free from this worst evil; this also is so in Switzerland and probably in all democratically governed countries. It is comparatively simple to keep the school free from this worst of all evils. Give into the power of the teacher the fewest possible coercive measures, so that the only source of the pupil's respect for the teacher is the human and intellectual qualities of the latter.

At the time Einstein wrote this, the US had long had a compulsory education system; and Einstein specifically says that the problem he is talking about, the use of fear and force and artificial authority, is not a problem in US schools.

If Einstein's opinion is worth considering, let's represent it honestly.

[Apologies if someone else has already addressed this in the preceding 23 pages. But I have a rain day off today and couldn't resist making at least one post.]

 

[A'isha]

[Apologies if someone else has already addressed this in the preceding 23 pages. But I have a rain day off today and couldn't resist making at least one post.]

Nope, no one has mentioned that specifically. And I find it very interesting, thank you!

Malcolm, your response?

 

[elbe]

Since all parents have plenty of escape options in the US educational system, then the current system meets your requirements.

That's really what I don't understand. Malcolm claims to want choice, but still rails against what, strangely enough, most people choose. Is he upset that the market has chosen the one he doesn't like? Or, more likely, does he want to limit choice by completely removing the most common choice from the set of options.

For what little it's worth if I had kids I'd choose public school. I'm not a personal fan of private schooling in general and I don't claim to be well rounded enough to be able to provide them with a thorough education at home. I'd still teach them stuff I know, but I'd be happy that the education system is in place to make them more rounded people.

 

[A'isha]

That's really what I don't understand. Malcolm claims to want choice, but still rails against what, strangely enough, most people choose. Is he upset that the market has chosen the one he doesn't like? Or, more likely, does he want to limit choice by completely removing the most common choice from the set of options.

He believes that public schools have an unfair advantage by virtue of their being...well, public schools. Plus, you know, cartel, dues-paying, make-work, etcetera etcetera.

 

[RandFan]

At the time Einstein wrote this, the US had long had a compulsory education system; and Einstein specifically says that the problem he is talking about, the use of fear and force and artificial authority, is not a problem in US schools.

If Einstein's opinion is worth considering, let's represent it honestly.

[Apologies if someone else has already addressed this in the preceding 23 pages. But I have a rain day off today and couldn't resist making at least one post.]

Thank you. I've not seen that. But I have seen other quotes edited out of context. One should always be skeptical of appeals to Einstein. Einstein himself said that we should be skeptical of anything quoted on the Internet.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm is honest enough in that opening post to admit he is not quoting Einstein (whose work on this he likely has never read). He is, as he indicated, quoting from Roland Meighan, whom he has read.

I have a copy of the Einstein collection I cite. I also read Relativity but did not understand. More differential geometry would probably have helped. I read the Meighan article also.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

He believes that public schools have an unfair advantage by virtue of their being...well, public schools.

By virtue of their exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And? I've no idea what this has to do with anything.

On-the-job training is not just for "the poor".

That's like saying that plumbers or doctors are potentially cheap. And what do you mean by "cheap"? My dad didn't have enough money to pay rent or keep up car payments. What makes you think he had any money for school?

What makes anyone suppose that school is the only way to get an education?

You are ignoring my premises. By and large, you can't get a job as a computer programmer without experience. You can't get a job as a programming internship or apprenticeship (usually) without having some schooling. Could you please support your claims? Thanks.

Would you please read this.

 

[RandFan]

On-the-job training is not just for "the poor".

Still not sure what it has to do with anything. How many poor people have done what Fitzpatrick did? Yes, affluent people with connections can get that kind of on the job training. And poor people?

What makes anyone suppose that school is the only way to get an education?

I never claimed it was the only way. Just the best way to educate poor people.

Would you please read this.

Not until you use it as source material to support an argument. I don't do argument via link. Make a case and support your case with a pull quote to demonstrate you understand the source material.

 

[A'isha]

I have a copy of the Einstein collection I cite.

Then why did you excise the part of Einstein's quote where he explicitly excludes the US educational system from the criticisms he is making?

 

[Garrison]

No. So long as States maintain the system of assignment by district and some parents have no escape options, the current system consigns some children to wretched schools from the start.

That's an argument for raising standards in those poor schools not shutting them down and throwing parents onto their own resources, which in many of those districts are pretty meagre.

 

[Belz...]

On-the-job training is not just for "the poor".

That sound you just heard was the point flying over your head.

 

[bruto]

Robert Fitzroy's parents were not poor. He attended the admiralty school for two years and went to sea at 14. He became a captain in the British Navy and founded the British Weather Service.
School can be expensive. Tax-subsidized State-monopoly schools will almost certainly be expensive due to lobbying by insiders. Education is potentially cheap. It does not take 12 years at $12,000 per pupil-year to teach a normal child to read and compute. On-the-job training is as much "education" as it attendance at schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

Robert Fitzroy lived in the early nineteenth century in England, did he not? At that time, it was considered quite a privilege to train as a naval officer at a very young age. Clearly he had little of what others would consider nowadays to be schooling, but it would be surprising if he did not have private tutoring. He did attend the Admiralty School, and if he was a midshipman, he almost certainly had some organized, education on board the ship. On many ships there was a schoolmaster (and it seems useful to note that this was the term used) who oversaw instruction to midshipmen not only in the skills of calculation and navigation but on other subjects as well. Mr. Fitzroy, as a high born aristocrat, son of a general, and a relative of royalty, enjoyed a life of unusual privilege and embarked on an educational and career choice open to very few. To use his extraordinary case as an example for the instruction of the general population seems at least a poor choice if not outright silly and dishonest.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Robert Fitzroy lived in the early nineteenth century in England, did he not? At that time, it was considered quite a privilege to train as a naval officer at a very young age. Clearly he had little of what others would consider nowadays to be schooling, but it would be surprising if he did not have private tutoring. He did attend the Admiralty School, and if he was a midshipman, he almost certainly had some organized, education on board the ship. On many ships there was a schoolmaster (and it seems useful to note that this was the term used) who oversaw instruction to midshipmen not only in the skills of calculation and navigation but on other subjects as well. Mr. Fitzroy, as a high born aristocrat, son of a general, and a relative of royalty, enjoyed a life of unusual privilege and embarked on an educational and career choice open to very few

You're making my point. Contra Randfan's assertion that on-the-job training is for "the poor", children of privilege also took this route. Yes, Fitzroy likely had tutors before he attended the Admiralty school. Again, that makes my point: his parents successfully provided education without school. One further point. Fitzroy blazed through what the Admiralty considered a three year curriculum in twenty months. This indicates (a) he was quite bright and (b) the Admiralty school did not force all students to move at a uniform pace.

To use his extraordinary case as an example for the instruction of the general population seems at least a poor choice if not outright silly and dishonest.

Go "dishonest" yourself,

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's an argument for raising standards in those poor schools not shutting them down and throwing parents onto their own resources, which in many of those districts are pretty meagre.

A full response to this would involve a consideration of "standards". I doubt anyone in this discussion has the patience. Almost everyone misuses the term. A standard is a unit of measurement. Redefining "meter" or "foot" will not make children taller. Further, the failure of State schools has far less to do with written job descriptions (which is what Garrison must intend here by "standards") than with the incestuous relation between politicians and other system insiders (administrators and teachers). Absent escape options for parents (vouchers, relaxed restrictions on homeschooling, etc), the evolution of cooperation between the predators upon taxpayers (and students) is inevitable.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Then why did you excise the part of Einstein's quote where he explicitly excludes the US educational system from the criticisms he is making?

Einstein's analysis of the relation between compulsion and motivation generalizes. Nothing excepts schools in the US. Perhaps Einstein was being diplomatic, or perhaps he bought the progressive propaganda about US schools, with which he had no direct experience, prevalent at the time.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Still not sure what it has to do with anything. How many poor people have done what Fitzpatrick did? Yes, affluent people with connections can get that kind of on the job training. And poor people?

Again:...

On-the-job training is not just for "the poor".What makes anyone suppose that school is the only way to get an education?Would you please read this.

 

[RandFan]

Again:...

Again:...

Yes, affluent people with connections can get that kind of on the job training. And poor people?

 

[Mister Earl]

Malcolm, do you believe reality is subjective? Specifically, that if a certain worldview is something that you prefer, and want it hard enough, that it will spring into being?

 

[A'isha]

Einstein's analysis of the relation between compulsion and motivation generalizes.

No, it doesn't. It's quite specific, in fact.

Nothing excepts schools in the US. Perhaps Einstein was being diplomatic, or perhaps he bought the progressive propaganda about US schools, with which he had no direct experience, prevalent at the time.

Einstein specifically mentions schools in the United States and Switzerland as being exempt from "this worst evil", and extends it to schools in "probably all democratically governed countries". He is specifically describing the schools in autocratic states like Germany and Russia, and is not talking about public compulsory education in general.

Einstein's quote, in other words, directly contradicts your argument. If you have to misleadingly and dishonestly edit that quote to pretend that it actually supports your argument instead, perhaps you ought to rethink your argument entirely.

At the very least, have the decency to either use Einstein's quote in its unedited entirety from now on, or just stop using it altogether.