Timeline for Why would a government passively encourage its people to not obtain a formal education?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2016 at 22:28 | comment | added | Luaan | @o.m. Well, that's quite obvious from your second paragraph, so don't worry :) | |
| May 23, 2016 at 20:25 | comment | added | o.m. | @Luaan, I hope you realize that I'm answering in the context of a fictional world for a story or game. In the real world, I firmly believe that it is the job of the government to collect enough taxes so that all children can get a decent education, no matter how rich or poor their parents are. | |
| May 23, 2016 at 15:53 | comment | added | coteyr | This is very important. Our basic schools could teach what they currently teach in about 3 years. The rest is just fluff. There has been a lot of push recently to change curriculum to a more "teaching how to learn" then "teaching facts" type of education, just because of this. | |
| May 23, 2016 at 9:02 | comment | added | Luaan | It's not the government's job to collect taxes. And "better educated" has very little correlation with "long education" - on a market, there's a strong incentive to make education as efficient as possible, which includes making it short. In our so-called "basic schools", it takes 9 years to go through an education that only teaches a tiny bit of essentials (basic literacy, counting) and a huge amount of context-less data that will never stick to the students. The truth is, if you make prices free (as in freedom), they will give you information - is it worth it to invest more in learning? | |
| May 22, 2016 at 20:16 | history | answered | o.m. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |