Editorial RPG Codex Editorial: Darth Roxor on the State of RPG Writing

[Jedi Master Radek]

As for "how this is possible?!", then, as you can see, it is possible, very much! However, I suspect, only from time to time. First, you need to keep in mind that all this disaster in education began not so long ago, and when they talk about smart and educated people, it is actually a very thin layer of society (on which everything is actually holds).

Complain about education system being struck in XIX century. Think the problem is something new.

 

[Tigranes]

That means there's not time to invest in good quality teaching

This is absolutely different from what was shown in article - bad quality teaching could be also within education system where teachers actually explain wat they teach.
There was collegdes in USSR where education was visibly worse than in institutes and universities - however teachers did their job and explained material.
So "bad quality teaching" doesn't equate "deliberately dulled education system", it's not quality of subject, it's it foundation and basice principles.

I cannot comment on the specifics of Paris VI & the French system that your source talks about. And I certainly agree that it's possible to have bad systems and still have the right kind of teaching. I found the piece you quoted extremely interesting; it's always good to learn new things, and adjust my own ideas with that new information, instead of clinging to one pet theory.

My point was to talk about the various factors at work, in addition to the possibility of cultural degeneration or incompetent individuals. Certainly, there are aspects of that. E.g. we know that university students in the West spend a lot less time working than before, and have much lower tolerance for actually working. But the full picture comes together when you combine those things with economic and organisational changes in the university.

In US/UK/Canada/Australia/Netherlands/etc, being a university professor or instructor, your day to day life, your work conditions, your performance review, your promotion, job security, etc is all dramatically different from 30 or 50 years ago, and that affects the teaching as well as research.

Let me give you an example. The power dynamics change. 50 years ago, being a professor was a highly respected profession. Your students were (to a degree) afraid of you and respectful of your authority. And the university as an institution gave the professors actual authority & backing so that you could demand things of your students, and push them to actually learn and achieve. That has changed quite a lot; in many places, the teacher no longer feels they have that authority to push their students, and if you cannot push them, if you cannot force them to work hard, you are very limited in how you can teach as well. Why this change? Multiple causes, but the most important one is the economics of the university: the universities now make & require much more revenue, they are run like a business. To them what is truly valuable is not the professor, but the students, taking in more students to make more money. Thus the dynamic changes. Today, the professor is not imagined in these calculations as a teacher or an intellectual; they are a service provider, and their job is to provide service that satisfies their paying consumers - the students. That really impacts the teaching.

It's also worth noting that in France (and England), schools like ENS are not just 'top schools' but places where people go to be made into future politicians and prime ministers and such, a truly regimented gateway for the elite. So it's likely to have problems of homogenised thinking that your source described a lot more than even many of the elite US universities / colleges / high schools.

 

[JRIz]

They are the best students available, highly motivated, and the only things they are the best at is cramming info. Motivation do nothing for real understanding of thing they cram, if education system is built that way - nothing to expalain here, just cram!

Well then, are those "super-best" students actually experts in any traditional subject, or are they just highly trained at getting good grades? If this is the top university of France, then I'd say being naturally talented for mathematics, etc. is of course different from being motivated to quickly get your degree so you can finally inherit a fortune from your parents/become a party official.

Also, I don't know but the teaching methods employed at this École might be conducive to this kind of development in students. If your whole life consists of school lessons where well-paid teachers work again and again to get the necessary bits of knowledge into your head so you can score high in tests, then it is again different from a certain mindset in educators that gives students more freedom in arriving at the right conclusions.

Academics are increasingly required to produce research faster and in greater volumes to even have a chance at getting a job, which means they are on their own treadmill of constantly churning research out no matter what. That means there's not time to invest in good quality teaching, and that also is the general force behind the occasional scandals you see today around shoddy research or scientists massaging data to push out findings.

True, but...

And when you finally get to the scene of teaching, top universities will have reasonable resources, but everywhere below that, chances are that the instructor is an adjunct, perhaps driving for hours between 2-3 different universities to teach these courses and getting paid in soggy condoms, busy grading and lecturing for hundreds of students. Not exactly the conditions for really effective teaching.

...this is totally not how it is in some European countries. In Germany, all teachers (PhD students and professors) of the important universities are employees of the state and while these jobs might be a bit more stressful than one would like, there is typically no shortage of funds. Then again, I have noticed that university courses in the USA are really more like school with a fixed schedule and so on whereas here, the exams are the only mandatory part which means courses might be a bit less work-intensive. Depends on the philosophy, I guess. Turns out, both strategies equally cannot (and are not intended to) filter out students that don't want but have to study anyway.

I still think the main problem is that while in former times, academics taught students so most of them could again become academics again, now universities must "process" a much larger portion of the population without them becoming part of the system.

Another consequence of this is that the most brilliant minds are not actually professors (teachers for new generations) anymore, as they should. Instead, you get your degree (or not) and then you do something useful somewhere else, without feeding back into the system.

 

[Tigranes]

That's cool to know. My knowledge of the continental European side is patchier, and what I say will apply more to the English-speaking West. And yes, conditions do still vary quite a bit across countries and even within different types of institutions within a country. The Paris #s are a pretty special system, for example.

I still think the main problem is that while in former times, academics taught students so most of them could again become academics again, now universities must "process" a much larger portion of the population without them becoming part of the system.

Absolutely. Our ideas of what a university should be, and how the universities are actually run, are so different that there is no surprise we start to get crazy dissonances, including some of those described in Fenix's source.

In an ideal world, being a professor would be a respectable and desirable job again, and professors would be pushed harder to live up to that & up their game. And many students would not go to university at all, but learn a practical craft and do a job that pays well and actually helps society instead of the 8000th graduate who didn't give a shit and is now working at HR. But we are going the opposite direction.

Of course, the next step is the widespread decline in public funding is going to result in a massive shrinkage of universities. And for all the flaws of old school research universities, we are not going to like it when they die off and we get a ton of shoddy for-profit churn-out-degrees-like-hotcakes universities that prey on desperate youngsters looking for a job. Everybody and their dog will have a degree off some online course, and nobody will learn anything from it.

Meanwhile, whether you're a student, a teacher, or an otuside observer, life is just how it is with RPGs or mathematics or anything else: you either join the decline and relax in the puddle, or you try to provide the minority of incline.

 

[Demo.Graph]

M.Soc.Sci that has to "IIRC" something Bourdieu wrote?

I SMELL A LIE BOYS

I've changed my profession. In Russia sociology is not paid well enough.
And many of Bourdieu's writings were on a periphery of my interests at the time. I wasn't/isn't sure that he is the authority in the topic.

 

[Fenix]

Complain about education system being struck in XIX century. Think the problem is something new.

It is new actually, as his fellow teachers had very different education.
I don't understand, how you could miss that.

That means there's not time to invest in good quality teaching

This is absolutely different from what was shown in article - bad quality teaching could be also within education system where teachers actually explain wat they teach.
There was collegdes in USSR where education was visibly worse than in institutes and universities - however teachers did their job and explained material.
So "bad quality teaching" doesn't equate "deliberately dulled education system", it's not quality of subject, it's it foundation and basice principles.

I cannot comment on the specifics of Paris VI & the French system that your source talks about. And I certainly agree that it's possible to have bad systems and still have the right kind of teaching. I found the piece you quoted extremely interesting; it's always good to learn new things, and adjust my own ideas with that new information, instead of clinging to one pet theory.

My point was to talk about the various factors at work, in addition to the possibility of cultural degeneration or incompetent individuals. Certainly, there are aspects of that. E.g. we know that university students in the West spend a lot less time working than before, and have much lower tolerance for actually working. But the full picture comes together when you combine those things with economic and organisational changes in the university.

In US/UK/Canada/Australia/Netherlands/etc, being a university professor or instructor, your day to day life, your work conditions, your performance review, your promotion, job security, etc is all dramatically different from 30 or 50 years ago, and that affects the teaching as well as research.

Let me give you an example. The power dynamics change. 50 years ago, being a professor was a highly respected profession. Your students were (to a degree) afraid of you and respectful of your authority. And the university as an institution gave the professors actual authority & backing so that you could demand things of your students, and push them to actually learn and achieve. That has changed quite a lot; in many places, the teacher no longer feels they have that authority to push their students, and if you cannot push them, if you cannot force them to work hard, you are very limited in how you can teach as well. Why this change? Multiple causes, but the most important one is the economics of the university: the universities now make & require much more revenue, they are run like a business. To them what is truly valuable is not the professor, but the students, taking in more students to make more money. Thus the dynamic changes. Today, the professor is not imagined in these calculations as a teacher or an intellectual; they are a service provider, and their job is to provide service that satisfies their paying consumers - the students. That really impacts the teaching.

It's also worth noting that in France (and England), schools like ENS are not just 'top schools' but places where people go to be made into future politicians and prime ministers and such, a truly regimented gateway for the elite. So it's likely to have problems of homogenised thinking that your source described a lot more than even many of the elite US universities / colleges / high schools.

If your thought was that it's some economical reasons of decline I strongly disgree. Economy is subordinated to the thought, thought is primary, economy following.
It's not economy, it's deliberate sabotage that of course starts from school.
What were economic reasons to ruin education in schools? Why change it at all if it already produced good results?

Here is another article - "Speech by Academician V.I. Arnold at parliamentary hearings in the State Duma" which is just speech of Academician V.I. Arnold against USE aka ЕГЭ in Russia in 2002, which delayed these reforms for few years.
https://scepsis.net/library/id_651.html

I wont translate it whole, you have google or something like that, but some part I'll translate.

But here is an example of this new culture: a fourth-year mathematics student at one of the best universities in Paris asked me during the three-hour written exam on the theory of dynamic systems: “Help, please: do four sevenths be greater or less than one? I reduced the problem of the system behavior to the study of the similarity of the integral, and this study to the asymptotics of the integrand, and the exponent of this asymptotics was 4/7, but for the final conclusion about the convergence of the integral, you need to know if this number is greater than 1. and you do not allow to use the computer at the exam, and I can not completely/fully solve the problem.

He was a good student, and he correctly solved the difficult questions of the theory of dynamical systems, which I taught him for a year, and he found the 4/7 fraction correctly. But it was not I who taught him simple fractions, but “modern didactics”, which distorted elementary training, so that all simple and useful skills, like the ability to count at least 2 + 3 fingers, were lost.

By the way, the French Minister of Education himself was indignant at the inability of the best schoolboys in Paris to add 2 and 3 (according to him, they answered: “It will be 3 + 2, since addition is commutative,” but they could not count the answer).

Amazing, right? When someone who was educated in USSR in 60s solved geometry tasks mentally, without written fixation and drawing, modern students can't solve a shit literally.
And you are still surprised that americans buy russian rocket engines made in 70s because they still have nothing better?

Here is the quote form another article about academician V.I. Arnold about same minister:

The French Minister of Education and Science asked the undergraduate "how many will be two plus three." He answered "three plus two, since addition is commutative," as he was taught in school (and he could not count). The minister tried to replace such teaching with normal - and he was soon removed from his post, at the same time reforming the ministry.

Undergraduate - right word? text mean "first grade students" those who is around 7-10 years.
Addition is commutative!

being naturally talented for mathematics

Again you reducing everything to some things that shouldn't be here - talented or not it doesn't matter. These students doesn't get right education - starting from the school.
Instead of educating them - they are forced to cram everything like a memorization machine.
University education is fiction too - it is fiction on entry exams with these modern smart calculators, it's still fiction further - remmeber part about physics.

Also, I don't know but the teaching methods employed at this École might be conducive to this kind of development in students.

Universities work with yesterday's schoolboys.

If your whole life consists of school lessons where well-paid teachers work again and again to get the necessary bits of knowledge into your head so you can score high in tests, then it is again different from a certain mindset in educators that gives students more freedom in arriving at the right conclusions.

You mean education was ruined or what? I don't get your thought.




In school I had bad grades in physics, geometry - 2from 5, and slightly better in mathematics 3 from 5.
I was exactly like these students - I didn't get what is what and didn't give troubles to cram that shit.
So in order to be able to pass the final exams I visited tutor who teached me math - my school teacher.
I worked whole yeard hard with her - wrote up three thick notebooks with math tasks, I was good so all these integrals and sines and cosines was nothing for me - it was solid 4 out of 5, almost 5.
However, I've forgotten everything about thse things after year or so - probably because I had many gaps in math knowledge before.
But my mother who stiudied in vallage school solved everything except task with ballon, and can still perfectly handle any fractions and long division/division by bar.

I know I was bad schoolboy, but I never could imagine, even to think that modern days this blatant not-knowing will be accepted as knowing.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

It is new actually, as his fellow teachers had very different education.
I don't understand, how you could miss that.

It isn't new. His complains about education system being too focused on passive teaching of factoids rather than teaching of creativity isn't something new. It's a complain of education system with a very long tradition.

 

[Tigranes]

If your thought was that it's some economical reasons of decline I strongly disgree. Economy is subordinated to the thought, thought is primary, economy following.
It's not economy, it's deliberate sabotage that of course starts from school.

It is my experience that when you look at anything from the outside, then it is easiest to see specific individual acts of sabotage, stupidity, negligence, ideological evil. But the closer you look, the more you find other factors (economics included, but not just economics) working together with such stupidity and sabotage.

With RPGs, which is the one thing we all know very well, I think we know at this point that yes, there is a lot of stupidity and such going on. But it's clear that the decline of RPGs was not just due to Todd Howard and some SJW sitting in a dark room in 1999 plotting to destroy the manly might of Chris Avellone. It's clear that the economic changes where games are made by 500 people and have to sell to 10 million idiots who don't care about good gameplay was a huge factor, and that these kinds of factors combine with particular individuals who may indeed have a severe case of declinitis.

Also:

By the way, the French Minister of Education himself was indignant at the inability of the best schoolboys in Paris to add 2 and 3 (according to him, they answered: “It will be 3 + 2, since addition is commutative,” but they could not count the answer).

Yeah, colour me skeptical on this one. I'm ready to believe that Ministers do a lot of stupid, stupid shit, but...

Undergraduate - right word? text mean "first grade students" those who is around 7-10 years.
Addition is commutative!

Undergraduates are university students. So you mean kids in elementary school (or primary school in the UK system), and yeah, 'first grade' students.

 

[JRIz]

You mean education was ruined or what? I don't get your thought.

What I think is that the scientists of a society should be really smart people, ideally the smartest. And if you want to become a scientist, you study at a university. So what I meant is that we are dealing with really smart and also talented, and therefore naturally interested, people to be taught here, again ideally.

This opinion might not be universally shared but my impression here is that if you leave smart people with a strong interest in useful disciplines almost completely to their own devices, they will mostly learn by themselves, given enough resources for self-education. For example, if a young school student is interested in computer games, he might at some point start becoming likewise interested in how they are built, and will try to build one himself. While doing this, he will learn computer programming, maybe other details about computers and engineering in general and when it comes to graphics programming, he might absolutely teach himself extensive knowledge in linear algebra from online resources or books.

This is of course very dependent on motivation which is why parents and upbringing is a big factor here (muh privilege). But seriously, a central issue that modern public schools were intended to eliminate was this difference in chances between students from different social standings, which brings us again to certain economic topics. In short, I think the idea behind public schools was of course reasonable in former times since parents who were farmers simply did not have the time for much education, and their children similarly because they had to help, even though they did want to educate themselves. Nowadays, this (again) often amounts to a race to the bottom with some private schools left which are basically just networking platforms for the rich.

Second, for a student to start self-teaching, a solid formal foundation is probably vital. This is hard to judge for someone who went to school but if you were raised in the jungle, it is with all probability not easy for you to learn linear algebra from books. Also, having an intuitive understanding of linear algebra, this hypothetical student from above might even be very delighted to see linear functions and their properties, etc. formally defined by a teacher in school/university because this conveys to him hundreds of years of knowledge distilled by mankind in a concise format, which might very well complete his mental picture of everything. On the other hand, fractions, as you mentioned, long division, etc. must definitely be learned by heart before anything mathematical can be attempted (therefore a solid foundation). But you must again also have an intuitive understanding of long division for example, e.g., to transfer its use onto other number systems.

In short, I think the balance between implicit learning by doing and formal education is completely broken nowadays and this situation is aggravated by the fact that students often don't learn anything informally at home.

Come to think of it, what happened to child prodigies in our times?

Spoiler

Wolfgang Sartorius von Waltershausen says that when Gauss was barely three years old he corrected a math error his father made; and that when he was seven, he confidently solved an arithmetic series problem faster than anyone else in his class of 100 students.

 

[janjetina]

A Gauss or a Von Neumann happens once in 100 years

 

[JRIz]

But for some reason the 18th century had so many geniuses. Does this mean we'll have to wait a few hundred years now until another one comes along?

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

But for some reason the 18th century had so many geniuses. Does this mean we'll have to wait a few hundred years now until another one comes along?

Nowadays geniuses work in so specialized fields that you won't hear about them, because a lay person don't even know those fields exist. This is how progress works, there is too much knowledge now for one person to understand it all.
Also if you look closely on works of past geniuses you will see how dependent they were on works of others, their theories often came from a scrupulous analysis of all scientific achievements made in their age. Newton didn't lie when he said that he is a midget standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

[JRIz]

There are not so many fields where advancements could go completely unnoticed except theoretical ones (because there, it's possible for stuff to get saved up for a later time). So if someone was working on mathematical problems, then maybe. But I don't think there are any geniuses working in theoretical computer science or physics, sadly. Everything else would translate into the real world real quick. You would read about it, wouldn't you? What about genetic engineering, which is probably one of the most amazing things we have today? It seems mostly like purely engineering progress, I don't know.

A genius enters a general field, tackles central problems that have been bothering the scientists for decades, if not centuries, solves them, and defines paradigms that will shape every thought in this field for the next few centuries to come.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

Everything else would translate into the real world real quick

False. Many scientific discovery will translate into some real world inventions only after quite some time.

A genius enters a general field, tackles central problems that have been bothering the scientists for decades, if not centuries, solves them, and defines paradigms that will shape every thought in this field for the next few centuries to come.

Then it may be too late for that. Most central problems have been already solved. Now scientist work mostly on far more on solving more specialized problems, that are difficult to understand for lay person.

 

[JRIz]

False. Many scientific discovery will translate into some real world inventions only after quite some time.

After 10 years at most, given the funding, so engineers can develop the necessary techniques. Except perhaps when the research is purely theoretical, as I said.

Most central problems have been already solved.

Dude, there are many central problems which are still unresolved: Of Hilbert's problems from 1900 4 still have no answer. Fermat's last theorem is extremely simple to formulate

...states that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation aⁿ + bⁿ = cⁿ for any integer value of n greater than 2

yet reveals that we still seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of even simple integers. It was proved only in '94 and is a pretty big deal. When this happens, you read about it.

Or in theoretical computer science, you have the P=NP question and its real world implications are potentially real fucking huge. You would read that, too. Theoretical physics remains in a similar situation.

Everything not specifically as theoretical as this would translate much more readily into engineering applications.

Also, engineering is much more of a big deal in our time. There are so many things that could be solved with relatively straightforward thinking (compared to e.g., mathematics) but require so much work and coordinated effort that it still has not been achieved yet. I'm thinking of pretty much all medical applications here: genetic engineering, cybernetics. Also virtual reality has so much unrealized potential. A genius would help here, too. The main issue is the systematic application of methodologies learned in all fields of engineering and bringing them together (testing environments and so on). It actually boggles the mind.

Now scientist work mostly on far more on solving more specialized problems, that are difficult to understand for lay person.

What kind of mental gymnastics is this, anyway? "Specialization is so cool, scientists nowadays work only on topics so obscure it's OK if you notice fucking nothing even if a genius is doing it." Lel.

 

[Zer0wing]

This topic won't be complete without this picture since Fenix said something bad about ЕГЭ (USE), implying this is the root of all evil.

Spoiler

Spoiler

No, you don't use integrals on 1970s example, don't worry.

 

[cvv]

Most central problems have been already solved.

General relativity and quantum mechanics still haven't been reconciled, suggesting we're still basically clueless. We're still missing something huge. It's like those two blind guys holding elephant - one by his trunk and one by his hind leg. The first claims it's a snake, the other one it's a tree.

True reality could be completely different from our current understanding, suggesting we might have barely begun to tap into the pool of central problems.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

Most central problems have been already solved.

General relativity and quantum mechanics still haven't been reconciled, suggesting we're still basically clueless. We're still missing something huge. It's like those two blind guys holding elephant - one by his trunk and one by his hind leg. The first claims it's a snake, the other one it's a tree.

True reality could be completely different from our current understanding, suggesting we might have barely begun to tap into the pool of central problems.

It's not on the level of: what sun is? what the lighting is? what causes the landscape to look as it looks today? what causes sickness? Can human fly? why there are so many different species? Why volcanoes erupt? Why things fall to the ground?

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are advanced topics only people interested in physic are interested in and can understand. I shouldn't use phrase "central problems" I should use the phrase "problems people without knowledge about certain fields can understand". Sorry for that.

To reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity humanity needs to gather enough data to reach conclusions, so it's similar to the way other science revolutions have worked in the past: hundreds scientists fresh out the reality and when they understand enough someone gathers the knowledge and create a new theory.

 

[ScrotumBroth]

What a great discussion, a pleasure to read.

 

[Fenix]

It isn't new. His complains about education system being too focused on passive teaching of factoids rather than teaching of creativity isn't something new. It's a complain of education system with a very long tradition.

Dude, I don't know what to say - did you miss the entire text I posted?
He talked absolutely not about some CREATIVITY - he talked about fact that there was EDUCATIONAL ARMAGEDDON in near past, the result of which was that in schools there is no more education, same in universities.
He didn't talked about "creativity", he talked that there is no education beause kids in school weren't teached what they should be.
I just don't understand - you're kidding or what?
It's not "passive teaching", it's not teaching at all - kids don't understand what they teaching at all. Earth diameter is 10millimeters - fine! As you wish.
I give up - if you don't see it form text, I don't know how to explain.
Possible, you was already bulshitted that this is normlal "education" as you haven't see anything better, judging by these strange words like "passive teaching".

Normal education, that the only thing that could be called "education" consist from these things - people know what they are doing, and what they are studying, know that the sine of 30 degrees is 1/2 and why. They can add 3 plus 2 and get the number, they know that 3/6 is 1/2 not 1/3, know long division.
I'm not talking about miracles of solving geometry mentally - fine, it's gone with USSR it seems.
But at least they should be able to get at least 20 year old education?

What happen in France education today, is how the priests were thaught - ritual, did this and happen this. For modern kids it's like magic - understanding not required. Jist like results.

PS Did you think what will happen with white natives, when they lost the only competitive advantage over the arabs and negroes - actual knowledge, because such "education" gives them as much knowledge as some Somali pirate or Pakistan rapist?

But it's clear that the decline of RPGs was not just due to Todd Howard and some SJW sitting in a dark room in 1999 plotting to destroy the manly might of Chris Avellone.

It's called straw man argument. Only a dumbfucks could imegine somehting like that, so you actually fight with thing you imagined yourself, and won lol.
No, it was different, and it doesn't meant it didn't exist and doesn't exist now because of that.

This opinion might not be universally shared but my impression here is that if you leave smart people with a strong interest in useful disciplines almost completely to their own devices, they will mostly learn by themselves, given enough resources for self-education.

Kids don't have self-discipline for self education - maybe 1 from 100, and that isn't normal kid anyway. That doesn't mean, that other 99 can't be a good scientists - you will never know, because you wont educate them.
All you said' is typical reasonings of layman.
You shoudl read text I translated, there was example that man can solve geometry tasks mentally without pan and paper and drawing, because he was trained like that in the school in 60s, and could count some things faster than his younger collegues using calculator.
Talent is a buzzword, that doesn't mean anything - what happen with that talent with "education" like in that article?
Besides that, not everyone scientist is a talent. Many just good specialists, who still contribute to science.

he might absolutely teach himself extensive knowledge in linear algebra from online resources or books.

Many things, if you didn't learned them in school, you will never catch up with them, that's why schools for children, not fro adults.
What you described called palliatives and education system, that produce narrow specialists, that are expendables today because everything change too fast and they know only how to push exactly these hew buttons of that color and size. Basically they are just a hand that pull the lever - they don't know what this lever for, or what's in nearby room, they only know their single function.

What shoudl be done instead - this student already perfectly know math, geometry, physics, and the such things, thus enriching himself in synergy, and having possibilities for many paths in life.
That's how it was in USSR at least.

But seriously, a central issue that modern public schools were intended to eliminate was this difference in chances between students from different social standings, which brings us again to certain economic topics.

But the only thing achieved is complete ruining of education and returning literally to stone age in education, given the facts in article I translated.
So if you really think, that thier goal really was this equality of chances lol - well, I guess it's a simple life, where stresses don't needed.

In short, I think the idea behind public schools was of course reasonable in former times since parents who were farmers simply did not have the time for much education, and their children similarly because they had to help, even though they did want to educate themselves. Nowadays, this (again) often amounts to a race to the bottom with some private schools left which are basically just networking platforms for the rich.

Dude, you now retelling me bullshit you was fed with. Today is no different form yesterday at all. What was working yesterday - will work today.
Equality of educatio is bullshit an big pile of shit, ust as any other justification that they told you about why education doesn't educate today, and about their noble reasons of ruining education which brought them incredible power, where no more smart and educated people left except oldsters.
I know, there is plans to cancel all schools, and transfer everybody (except kids of rich who are tomorrow's kings and dukes) to distance learning, so it will be mass of people who will be even more stupid and easlier to control - because kids should be FORCED TO TEACH things.

 

[Zer0wing]

Education is an art long gone. Gone with the last Andrei Kiselevs physical copy of arithmetics studybook.

The core problem still lies in school education, mainly the terrible studybooks. Modern studybook tends to be more "scientific" with important theories and arguments spending half of one page. They're simply not suitable for kids.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

Dude, I don't know what to say - did you miss the entire text I posted?
He talked absolutely not about some CREATIVITY - he talked about fact that there was EDUCATIONAL ARMAGEDDON in near past, the result of which was that in schools there is no more education, same in universities.
He didn't talked about "creativity", he talked that there is no education beause kids in school weren't teached what they should be.
I just don't understand - you're kidding or what?
It's not "passive teaching", it's not teaching at all - kids don't understand what they teaching at all. Earth diameter is 10millimeters - fine! As you wish.
I give up - if you don't see it form text, I don't know how to explain.
Possible, you was already bulshitted that this is normlal "education" as you haven't see anything better, judging by these strange words like "passive teaching".

The main problem the author has with education system is that kids don't really understand what they are taught so they can't use knowledge they have to solve problems they haven't come across before. They go by the motion, memorize formulas, memorize steps needed, but they don't really understand what they are doing, so they can't adapt their knowledge to solve new problems.

Sorry, you don't understand the main message of the text you were quoting.

 

[Fenix]

Education is an art long gone. Gone with the last Andrei Kiselevs physical copy of arithmetics studybook.

The core problem still lies in school education, mainly the terrible studybooks. Modern studybook tends to be more "scientific" with important theories and arguments spending half of one page. They're simply not suitable for kids.

I have archive with USSR studybooks, downloaded when I saw them. )

The main problem the author has with education system is that kids don't really understand what they are taught so they can't use knowledge they have to solve problems they haven't come across before. They go by the motion, memorize formulas, memorize steps needed, but they don't really understand what they are doing, so they can't adapt their knowledge to solve new problems.

No!
The main problem is that "kids don't really understand what they are taught so they can't use knowledge they have to solve problems they haven't come across before. They go by the motion, memorize formulas, memorize steps needed, but they don't really understand what they are doing, so they can't adapt their knowledge to solve new problems." because they were taught thas way, not because they not talented enough or dumb.
So the reason lies within education system, and its reforms in last ten years.
That's the difference you can't catch.

Sorry, you don't understand the main message of the text you were quoting.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

The main problem is that "kids don't really understand what they are taught so they can't use knowledge they have to solve problems they haven't come across before. They go by the motion, memorize formulas, memorize steps needed, but they don't really understand what they are doing, so they can't adapt their knowledge to solve new problems." because they were taught thas way, not because they not talented enough or dumb.

Never have I suggested the author thinks the problems is that kids are dumb. Even in the line your quoted i said "The main problem the author has with education system is ...". You really can't read.

 

[Fenix]

Then you failed to notice that it's not old problem, its new problem that appeared in last ten years or so in France, because his fellow teachers are smart guys, just old...
That mean, that before education system was OK. Now it's not.