Reason for attending?
| Public schooling was born from Prussian generals' being fed up with soldiers carrying independent notions like preferring to run away rather than into the direction of fire. Give me a good reason why I should attend class tomorrow. Why do you? |
[left] (◕‿◕✿) |
| Are you referring to HS( Secondary Education) or College? Either way it looks good down the road for school, college well depends on what you want to do. |
MiraniaFeb 26, 2017 4:47 PM
 |
| for hs you don't really need to go to school as long as you do your studies, and for university, i go unless i'm sick or unless its really unnecessary since my parents fork over the lion's share of my tuition and i only pay through part-time work i presume though some people will talk about how education is pointless while contemplating their lives as a shut in tho, since this is mal |
| ~"The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands." (Pirsig) |
Atosuryua said: I had the latter in mind but either suffices.Are you referring to HS( Secondary Education) or College? |
[left] (◕‿◕✿) |
Lo-Lee-Ta said: Atosuryua said: I had the latter in mind but either suffices.Are you referring to HS( Secondary Education) or College? do you pay for uni? or do you have uni paid for you? this is pretty much the only distinction that matters |
| ~"The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands." (Pirsig) |
Regicide said: Solid point. But what would you say if we were to be unpractical and not consider the material costs?Lo-Lee-Ta said: I had the latter in mind but either suffices. do you pay for uni? or do you have uni paid for you? this is pretty much the only distinction that matters |
[left] (◕‿◕✿) |
| down the road its generally useful to finish uni. At the very least, it shows employers that you can finish four years of classes. I mean if you can get good grades (like for certain classes, there's 0% attendance and 100% final), and if you are confident its an easy A+, then I see no point in going to class, but classes like that are few and far between |
| ~"The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands." (Pirsig) |
| To fix your mistaken assumption about who started public schools (it's the Spanish and Americans btw). |
| so that you wont end up like an idiot. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| For me I went to school because I had to, and now I go to college because I have to, lmao. No real reason other than that, really. I face the possibility of failing out, but meh if it happens it happens. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Aureolus said: Brb said: To fix your mistaken assumption about who started public schools (it's the Spanish and Americans btw). No, the modern public school comes from the Prussian education system; the Americas would later adopt it and put their own spin on it, but it came from Prussia. The purpose was to make good officers and loyal serfs. Frederick the Great laid the basic foundations. Uh huh, public education came from Catholic priests, which are part of Spains missionary missions. Originally it started as private tutorings which is the norm, apart from apprenticeship but due to the lack of priests(or teachers, as they are) semi-public schooling was established.they originally taught manners and such and catered to the rich, but eventually catered to a larger public. The whole revolutionize education for the masses was an American idea, hence I mentioned America. Simply put. The ones who started non-apprenticeship mass education is Spain and America globalized and made education all encompassing. Edit. While universities existed before(particularly in England, Spain and Italy) and in older times such as Ancient Greece, Alexandria and whatnot, they're more of scholarly gatherings rather than actual public schools. The first to actually try public education were Spanish missionaries in their indoctrination missions. |
BrbFeb 26, 2017 10:00 PM
Modern public schools are not necessarily secular. Nor did they start as secular. The majority of the public school in my country aren't secular, your argument does not stand. |
| Come on, nobody cares about free wifi except me? |
"At some point, I stopped hoping." |
Aureolus said: Brb said: Modern public schools are not necessarily secular. Nor did they start as secular. The majority of the public school in my country aren't secular, your argument does not stand. A public school has to be secular the majority of schools in your country are just religious schools who use government funhds. What? In what random ass did you get that definition. A public school is any government funded educational institution that encompasses all relevant topics, now I do not care if you have a strange bias against religion but that is the standard definition. |
| Well actually guys even public schools derive their origin and structure from private religious institutions, so whichever was the first 'public' school probably isn't of great importance. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| i like how pretty much none of these reasons are positive about school. one could genuinely likes school because they're learning things, or meeting new people, or simply enjoys the social connections there. |
| In high school, I could get anyway with anything but once I get to a big public uni that curves every class to a 2.7 or whatever, my performance throughout classes varied entirely much entirely based on how interested I was in the content. If a topic interests me, then school is worth attending. If not, then I can't be bothered. |
 |
Tachii said: i like how pretty much none of these reasons are positive about school. one could genuinely likes school because they're learning things, or meeting new people, or simply enjoys the social connections there. hey mine was positive. sayin get learned lol |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Brb said: There's a distinction to be made between these two type of schools, it's in their core purpose, for clarity's sake: I refer to them as they were back then. Your Spanish schools (are you talking about the Jesuits by the way?) were heavily religious in their goals which did not match with what would give most governments the incentive to fund and popularize them, these states were impressed by the mass mobilization revolutionary France managed to attain from their citizens and wanted to artificially create it as well, Prussia thought this was key after they lost embarrassingly to France during one of the Coalitions in a year, Prussia saw the power that ideology could give a nation and, given time, so did the other mayor powers. This is why Prussia is regarded as having established modern public schooling, they started the trend that others followed. Those Catholics and others had or not similar systems of popular education (I don't know) but the point is those were not emulated and did not give birth to the modern educational machine, as nobody saw them as a model worthy of considerable investment, even if they were similar. For the purpose of mass mobilization religion simply did not move the people as much as political ideology could. This is what brought about the immanence of nationalism. Leaders saw its potential.Aureolus said: A public school has to be secular the majority of schools in your country are just religious schools who use government funhds. What? In what random ass did you get that definition. A public school is any government funded educational institution that encompasses all relevant topics, now I do not care if you have a strange bias against religion but that is the standard definition. |
CodephatFeb 27, 2017 1:24 AM
[left] (◕‿◕✿) |
Lo-Lee-Ta said: Brb said: There's a distinction to be made between these two type of schools, it's in their core purpose, for clarity's sake: I refer to them as they were back then. Your Spanish schools (are you talking about the Jesuits by the way?) were heavily religious in their goals which did not match with what would give most governments the incentive to fund and popularize them, these states were impressed by the mass mobilization revolutionary France managed to attain from their citizens and wanted to artificially create it as well, Prussia thought this was key after they lost embarrassingly to France during one of the Coalitions in a year, Prussia saw the power that ideology could give a nation and, given time, so did the other mayor powers. This is why Prussia is regarded as having established modern public schooling, they started the trend that others followed. Those Catholics and others had or not similar systems of popular education (I don't know) but the point is those were not emulated and did not give birth to the modern educational machine, as nobody saw them as a model worthy of considerable investment, even if they were similar. For the purpose of mass mobilization religion simply did not move the people as much as political ideology could. This is what brought about the immanence of nationalism. Leaders saw its potential.What? In what random ass did you get that definition. A public school is any government funded educational institution that encompasses all relevant topics, now I do not care if you have a strange bias against religion but that is the standard definition. 1. That does not make them not public schools. They were public schools in every sense of the word: They were government funded. The religious sector had more power in the colonies than their European counterpart hence they had funding and etc, plus they served other purposes as well(mechant housing, safety areas in case of disasters, clocks, etc.) Claiming that having religion as one part of the educational system excludes it is a bullshit argument especially since the basis of Prussian education was basically indoctrination. They were not religious-centric. They taught arts, history, language, literature and philosophy and had subjects for handicrafts for women. They had science subjects, but those were minor as science wasn't a big thing at that time. They catered to 6-14 year olds and were open for all (though this was only at certain areas) hence they could not be considered universities(which were mostly scholarly) Those Catholics and others had or not similar systems of popular education (I don't know) but the point is those were not emulated and did not give birth to the modern educational machine, For all intents and purpose what the Prussians did was nationalize public education. It did not make it equal for all nor did they systematize it(hence Spanish and American) calling it as a basis for modern for public education could be true(arguable though), but it is not the start of public education nor is it the start of modern public education. For the purpose of mass mobilization religion simply did not move the people as much as political ideology could. Hah, that's bullshit, all those crusades did not happen because of political ideology. |
| If your country offers free college, you have no reason not to go. But if you're American complaining about high school, just stop being edgy and do your darn homework and don't be a weight on society when you're older. |
   I envy your delusion; I wish I could live in it  |
Brb said: I never said they weren't schools or that they weren't public.Lo-Lee-Ta said: There's a distinction to be made between these two type of schools, it's in their core purpose, for clarity's sake: I refer to them as they were back then. Your Spanish schools (are you talking about the Jesuits by the way?) were heavily religious in their goals which did not match with what would give most governments the incentive to fund and popularize them, these states were impressed by the mass mobilization revolutionary France managed to attain from their citizens and wanted to artificially create it as well, Prussia thought this was key after they lost embarrassingly to France during one of the Coalitions in a year, Prussia saw the power that ideology could give a nation and, given time, so did the other mayor powers. This is why Prussia is regarded as having established modern public schooling, they started the trend that others followed. Those Catholics and others had or not similar systems of popular education (I don't know) but the point is those were not emulated and did not give birth to the modern educational machine, as nobody saw them as a model worthy of considerable investment, even if they were similar. For the purpose of mass mobilization religion simply did not move the people as much as political ideology could. This is what brought about the immanence of nationalism. Leaders saw its potential. 1. That does not make them not public schools. They were public schools in every sense of the word: They were government funded. The religious sector had more power in the colonies than their European counterpart hence they had funding and etc, plus they served other purposes as well(mechant housing, safety areas in case of disasters, clocks, etc.) Claiming that having religion as one part of the educational system excludes it is a bullshit argument especially since the basis of Prussian education was basically indoctrination. They were not religious-centric. They taught arts, history, language, literature and philosophy and had subjects for handicrafts for women. They had science subjects, but those were minor as science wasn't a big thing at that time. They catered to 6-14 year olds and were open for all (though this was only at certain areas) hence they could not be considered universities(which were mostly scholarly) Those Catholics and others had or not similar systems of popular education (I don't know) but the point is those were not emulated and did not give birth to the modern educational machine, For all intents and purpose what the Prussians did was nationalize public education. It did not make it equal for all nor did they systematize it(hence Spanish and American) calling it as a basis for modern for public education could be true(arguable though), but it is not the start of public education nor is it the start of modern public education. For the purpose of mass mobilization religion simply did not move the people as much as political ideology could. Hah, that's bullshit, all those crusades did not happen because of political ideology. >Claiming that having religion as one part of the educational system excludes it is a bullshit argument especially since the basis of Prussian education was basically indoctrination. I never excluded them. Merely that they aren't the basis for modern education, as it has grown. I'm repeating myself now. >They were not religious-centric. They taught arts, history, language, literature and philosophy and had subjects for handicrafts for women. They had science subjects, but those were minor as science wasn't a big thing at that time. Perhaps more "educational" than the Prussian model. It's still not what was desired. Indoctrination, as you mentioned above, politically based indoctrination is the distinctive quality, and the driving force. >For all intents and purpose what the Prussians did was nationalize public education. It did not make it equal for all nor did they systematize it(hence Spanish and American) calling it as a basis for modern for public education could be true(arguable though), but it is not the start of public education nor is it the start of modern public education. I'm not advocating that the Prussian model was the first nor the only true version of public education ... it was the foundation for modern systems, blah blah.. The Americans did follow suit. The education, Prussian, was compulsory, for everyone, systemized. Yes, not equal, very classist, not the point. >Hah, that's bullshit, all those crusades did not happen because of political ideology. That was centuries before ... centuries, before the bayonet. |
[left] (◕‿◕✿) |
Public schooling was born from Prussian generals' being fed up with soldiers carrying independent notions like preferring to run away rather than into the direction of fire. Then what were you arguing about anyway? You made it seem like the Spanish ones were a different kind. Also my statements are all grounded on this. assumption about who started public schools (it's the Spanish and Americans btw). |
| They are different in purpose, the difference in purpose is what got the one popularized and the other less so relatively. They wanted more control of their citizens and ideology was the means. Lots of schools have been public, but only one of them was the primary basis for the modern educational system. This is what I am saying, this is what I have been saying. |
[left] (◕‿◕✿) |
| You shouldn't. Schools are quite stupid and you don't actually learn anything. They're means to get into university, but besides that they were good for nothing. I'm so glad to be out of it. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
Tachii said: That's why I asked for reasons. Though your last two [of three] definitely fall into the "extracurricular motives" option. Which was actually my vote.i like how pretty much none of these reasons are positive about school. one could genuinely likes school because they're learning things, or meeting new people, or simply enjoys the social connections there. Blaffie said: That "have to" doesn't sound very convincing when you sound so very resigned to either outcome.For me I went to school because I had to, and now I go to college because I have to, lmao. No real reason other than that, really. I face the possibility of failing out, but meh if it happens it happens. |
[left] (◕‿◕✿) |
| I wouldn't call spending time with friends or meeting new people specifically an extracurricular activity, as it's more a broad term that can happen during class as well as during breaks or time off. |
joe_g7 said: Come on, nobody cares about free wifi except me? I'd rather not. Believing a video would start after 15mins of buffering is just plain torture. |
| for HS I went because I basically just played my PSP...and I can either 1) Play it in class, still get perfect grades, and have a nice comfy seat to sit in with a desk, while maintaining a great attendance record for epeen purposes of course, or 2) Play somewhere else and still get perfect grades, but having a negative view cause of attendance. For Uni, I attended because i didn't wanna be butt fucked with lack of knowledge come midterm exam time. And you know, I actually wanted a good degree that makes me dosh. Along with having jobs line up at my feet, not being desperate for one. |
 |
| I voted "I don't" because I don't.. I already graduated high school and also finished college by the time I was 20. I never had thoughts like "I should quit" while I was attending school either even if it got really tiring and stressful at times but I owe that all to the fact that I actually enjoyed my school environment... this is a big factor I think. Because despite all the studying and the exams which I both really hated but had to deal with, school also allowed me to socialize with people and make friends, date guys, attend lots of parties, etc. All the good balanced out with the bad and made school worth it. Attending and graduating not only ensured my future career but also widened my social circle. Simply put, it was worth the pains I went through. But I know school isn't the only way to ensure your future though. If you actually think you can succeed in life without it, then by all means, ditch it. (This doesn't apply to high school though. I think those people who think that even high school education is unnecessary are just plain lazy.) |
 . . . . . ✘ . . . . .DO NOT touch my rice. . . . . . I'm Asian. . . . . . |
| My choice is either: - Go to school and have some fun time with my friends while doing nothing and learning nothing. - Not go to school and sleep this whole time. Ill take the school just because at least im spending the time in somewhat useful way. |
 |
Tachii said: Extracurricular in the sense that they're not in the curriculum. Doesn't matter where, how or when. If their primary motive for attending school isn't study related, no matter if they partake in the studies, it doesn't change their motive one bit.I wouldn't call spending time with friends or meeting new people specifically an extracurricular activity, as it's more a broad term that can happen during class as well as during breaks or time off. Ivy said: Should've voted for your past reason. :>I voted "I don't" because I don't.. I already graduated high school and also finished college. |
[left] (◕‿◕✿) |
| Because I want to get a decent career I still live with my parents so I still have Free Wifi, for the longest time are router kept crashing though I think it finally did a firmware update or something is it's mostly better now. The Wifi at my high school was junk everybody hated using it, maybe it was overloaded with phones connected to it. My college generally has good wifi, expect half of my classrooms still get horrible reception of it. |
Lo-Lee-Ta said: Surely you have at least one or two persons to impress for whatever reason, no?Give me a good reason why I should attend class tomorrow. Why do you? |
Happy Halloween  |
Plup said: Lo-Lee-Ta said: Surely you have at least one or two persons to impress for whatever reason, no?Give me a good reason why I should attend class tomorrow. Why do you? Here's one problem. Parents are impressed by grades. How sad. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
TheBrainintheJar said: Here's a solution.Plup said: Surely you have at least one or two persons to impress for whatever reason, no? Here's one problem. Parents are impressed by grades. How sad. Then do it to impress the grills. |
Happy Halloween |
| It's investing in yourself, which is the best kind of investment. You may not be guaranteed a better job (though it's much easier), but you'll be learning a lot, assuming your school isn't garbage and you actually pay attention. It's not really what you learn that's important, it's how you learn. Learning how to learn is one of the most important things in school and it helps you the rest of your life. Not to mention you ideally will meet people. Having friends in a field you want a job is important, whether they are other students or professors. Showing up all the time makes your professor/teacher like you more. This is such a short part of your life. Don't be lazy and make it harder for you down the line. This is all assuming you aren't from some well off family with a ridiculous amount of connections and not a care in the world. That would change things a little, but I'd still recommend trying to do things yourself. Don't fill the stereotype. Nobody likes those people. |
| Because...because... I'm not gonna lie to you, OP, I'm not sure why I'm here right now. Do what you want. |
| "No, son, you may not have your body pillow at the dinner table!" |
| Silly poll. Why attend public school? So that you don't become an ignoramus and post on MAL. Why attend college classes? You probably paid for them, so why would you not claim the service you paid for? |
 |
Aureolus said: @Brb What? In what random ass did you get that definition. A proper one. A public school is any government funded educational institution that encompasses all relevant topics Simply not true. Charter schools also receive government funding and are required to meet a certain standard. Private schools also receive funds, particularly grants-in-aid, as well as religious schools. now I do not care if you have a strange bias against religion I have noting against certain religions. but that is the standard definition. Perhaps in your head, but in reality it's called wrong. It's also funny that you continuously bring up America when a quick look up proves that they got their public education system from Prussia, with some changes to make it more American. Charter schools are an in between between private schools and public ones. Proper definition as given by oxford dictionary. (chiefly in North America) a school supported by public funds. PS. Person who does not know how to read. I brought up America as they were the ones who made and are credited for making modern public schooling (the systematized one that we use nowadays) Whereas Spain had the first example of publicly open education for children hence first public. |
BrbFeb 28, 2017 7:15 PM
| It would be nice for once to have a motive that doesn't base itself on me trying to validate myself for others. |
[left] (◕‿◕✿) |
| Actually, the reason for public schooling was that child labour became illegal and so the most logical thing to do with all the children would be to educate them so that they can help their parents out more in the future than they could by simply working for them. The reason to go to school is so you can get a job. Not graduating high school is an instant resume breaker. |
  |
Aureolus said: @Brb Private Education education provided by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body Collins English dictionary Public/State Education education provided by the state; education which is not private same group Besides once again charter schools disprove your definition since they're not public but receive state funding. First. Education does not equate to school. There are such things as public tutoring, workshops and stuff. 2 charter schools are public. I'll just post this here since it's hopeless to argue with you. http://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/education/blog/types-of-schools/ If it doesn't convince you, google it. Do note that it says there Religious Schools are private, but it is because that is what is the standard in America. Mod Edit: Removed abuse. |
BrbMar 1, 2017 2:30 PM
More topics from this board
» Is there a cure for mental illness?DesuMaiden - May 23 |
21 |
by Taiyaa
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» What if you saw God in heaven? ( 1 2 )-Usagi - Feb 3, 2016 |
74 |
by Dracowyn
»»
44 minutes ago |
|
» Plummeting Birthrates Is a Good Thingvasipi4946 - Yesterday |
12 |
by Dracowyn
»»
51 minutes ago |
|
» Favorite places in Japan(to thos who have been to Japan) and where would you like to visit in the future when you go again? ( 1 2 )KiraraFan - May 7 |
50 |
by GinIonSui
»»
53 minutes ago |
|
» do you still live with your parents?FruitPunchBaka - 8 hours ago |
17 |
by Dracowyn
»»
55 minutes ago |