Should schools start teaching everyday life stuff, like paying taxes and applying for a job.
Debate Rounds (3)
Job applications and job support are in fact covered by a lot of schools and there are thousands of talks organized for that matter. The majority of schools in any country including the US put a lot of effort into ensuring that their students are employable at least on the basic level once they leave their educational facilities, this is one of the core concept of western educational system, therefore, stating that schools do not teach such skills is madness. Many colleges and high-schools go as far as even setting up unique departments dedicated to that single issue, for example, http://seo.harvard.edu.... Therefore I don't agree with that particular view.
In regards to tax payment, it is true that in most cases it is left out of educational curriculum since the western educational system was founded during the industrial revolution era and it was designed around educating masses the basic principles of using industrial equipment for the purposes of the war effort. These core principles were strengthened during both world wars and remained a foundation block of our educational system. Paying for taxes was not necessary a skill that required a lot of coverage by the education system back then and since there was little to no reforms to this concept tax payment ended up being left out of education.
Is it worth including tax payments into everyday school life? Yes, it is not necessary something that should be banished from schools. However, the only real point in life where teaching such skills would be beneficent to anyone would be in the final days of high-school. This is because if we teach people skills that they don't use regularly they often forget how to use them, which is why you most likely can't remember what you did in your history classes years ago unless you are history enthusiasts. If we would teach taxing system early in school life it would amount to wasted time as there is no way to really practice tax paying and it is not a skill that will become useful until students complete their school-life, therefore, it only makes sense to teach them such skills once they approach the end of their basic school-life.
Additionally, people vastly over exaggerate the difficulty of paying taxes. In fact, you pay taxes every day, buying products from grocery shops for example. Most of the taxes became such trivialities that we don't even notice paying them. As for what can be argued as "proper taxes", there is enough resources online to research for oneself if there is a need. This is another skill that schools value, resourcefulness. It is also the reason schools don't teach you how to drive cars or how to shop online. These skills come naturally when needed, there are enough resources out there for anyone who needs any help, including government official tool tips and detailed information, contacts and emails.
You have said "Also, you say these core subjects help with communication and problem solving skills, the only thing stopping that is the teachers and the students. There will be students who want to work alone and want to be alone for the majority of school, and there will be teachers who will just give individual assignments and no group projects"
I disagree. It is true that students may hold their personal preferences, like you said some may prefer working alone while others would be more comfortable to work in a group. However, it is not the students that will decide what way they would like to work, it's the job market which creates demands for such skills. In order to remain employable, both skills must be mastered which is why schools put a huge effort into group exercises. It's perfectly fine to be shy or being uncomfortable around other people, this are personality traits that exist in a lot of people, me included. But this is exactly why such undesired personality traits must be challenged and students who have them must be pushed into uncomfortable positions so that they have a chance to develop themselves and gain confidence over their weakness.
As for the teachers who assigned individual assignments and no group projects, it really depends on the subject. However, ideally, during the course of the year, a good teacher would provide a mixture of both types of coursework.
Lastly, you also said, "some of the stuff we learn in school will more likely become irrelevant in the future and become a "The more you know" fact. Basically, what I'm arguing is that there should be some sort of way of knowing how to do everyday things for the future. If a school is to prepare us for the future, then why isn't it teaching us more relevant things for life. Or, in simpler terms, teach us what not to do in adulthood. Teach us what to do to keep away from the downsides of adulthood."
Firstly, let me address why schools cannot provide knowledge on "knowing how to do everyday things for the future" very briefly. It's very simple, we live in a rapid changing society. The entire education course runs for about 12-15 years. That is a massive amount of time on an industrial scale. Think about it, 15 years ago most of the technologies we use today did not yet exists and therefore all the jobs associated with those technologies didn't exist either. Therefore, if schools were to teach us things we need right now their curriculum's would have to change every year as direct knowledge quickly turns obsolete, therefore applying direct knowledge to general studies is counterproductive. It is true that direct knowledge is necessary, which is why it is being taught in high schools, colleges and universities rather than teen education.
I would just like to point out that school curriculum's do change every year or every couple of years to catch up with newest developments, however, those changes are absolutely justified as they are spread over long periods of time, changing school courses from year to year in a drastic manner would be destructive for general knowledge purposes.
From that quote above, you have also stated that "some of the stuff we learn in school will more likely become irrelevant in the future and become a "The more you know" fact."
It is true that most of what you learn in school will most likely remain deactivated knowledge that you'll most likely never use in your life however what you might not remember is that a lot of this concepts were essential for you back in that day in order to explain more complex concepts. For example, you may never use addition tables in your life, why would you? For most things in life, we can just do the addition in our heads, I can't remember the last time I took my paper out in the middle of a shop and started drawing the addition tables. Yet, that was a very important concept in mathematics for more advanced equations which is why it was necessary for you to know it back then.
This concept holds true for a majority of school courses, many things you forget are in fact building blocks of your current knowledge, you understand what you understand thanks to those building blocks that are now forgotten as they became obsolete for yourself.
Finally you have also said "Or, in simpler terms, teach us what not to do in adulthood. Teach us what to do to keep away from the downsides of adulthood.".
To this, I just have to say that school do in fact teach you what not to do in adulthood, directly and indirectly. By teaching you skills such as critical thinking and all employable skills they teach you to cope with life and make correct and morally just decisions. They teach you the sense of citizenship and the importance of following the law, in fact majority of what you think is "right" or what you think "you shouldn't do" comes from your education not your family.
Schools are your prime engineers.
As for the laws and rights. Again, all the resources for those that seek them are clearly available on government websites. Constitution booklets can be acquired for free so can all the single laws passed by the government. Schools teach you basic principles of United States Democratic ideology and the country foundations, teaching all 27 amendment rights to school children is not necessary, much better use for the time would be teaching children the American culture and helping them develop pride in their citizenship so once they grow up and are capable of understanding all the legal jargon of American laws they'll not only will learn their rights but they will learn them willingly and with a passion.
I believe that the primary reason why so many people do not use their right to vote and do not attend elections is because schools failed and continue to fail teach the importance and responsibility of voting in a democratic system. This suggests that you are in fact somehow right, however, I believe that educating students on their constitutional rights is not the cure to this problem since it's not their lack of knowledge of constitution that is at fault here but rather their lack of responsibility and sense of citizenship that is putting them off voting.
Finally, many people find things they learn in school irrelevant. However, you must remember that the educational system is not directed at one person but at the whole spectrum of personalities. For example, you may find great fire of London irrelevant, however, for someone else, this may be a crucial fact to know in order to understand the political situation in London following the years of 1666 while studying history in their spare time in which case they would find that fact extremely relevant. Besides, the great fire of London is the direct reason for London architectural design and the switch in building materials being used to rebuild the city, which is why it's an important and arguably interesting event to learn. There is only so much school can cover, though, a lot of very important historic facts go unheard of, but that's beyond the point.
Our educational system isn't perfect, there is plenty of room for improvements. However, due to general nature of said system, there isn't much that can be done without drastic changes which in the current era of "stability" are rather unlikely to occur.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hylian_3000 3 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro, please refrain from using swear words to amplify your argument. I understand that you were quoting a youtuber, but perhaps select a more appropriate source. S&G: No distracting spelling or grammar Arguments: Definitely Con. Pro may have had some salvageable arguments in Round 2, but he conceded all of them in Round 3. This leaves Pro with his only argument in Round 3, which Con adequately answered and refuted. Therefore, Con wins arguments. Source: Con was the only one who used sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.