Does Canada face any imminent military threat to its territory?

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'm trying to figure out what schools you two went to.

[Machjo]

I'm trying to figure out what schools you two went to.

I'd studied in a French-medium Catholic school in Ottawa at the beginning of elementary school and at a French-medium elementary school in Victoria BC for the rest. Then I'd studies in English-medium middle and high schools in Nanaimo and Victoria, and college in Victoria.

I must say that while I'd learnt much useful knowledge in high school, none of it was as important as learning some kind of trade or profession, which I did not even start to learn until after high school. Had I not been able to receive higher education for any reason, I'd likely have been screwed in life.

[Bonam]

Each child must be expected to succeed on some level or other. Sure the level of success could vary, but the idea of just babysitting them is a waste of money.

I think you're missing my point. It's not that I disagree with you, it's just that this area, among many others, is where our society is in unmitigated decline. Babysitting is about all our schools are still good for, and there's little point to expect anything more.

Students that are motivated to achieve something largely do so through their own initiative, regardless of what the school "teaches" (or fails to teach) them.

To address your points more directly, and why none of this is politically/societally viable:

Those with more limited abilities could narrow their specialization down a little but still be expected to master it. Since it would be narrowed down a little, it would mean less to learn, thus not overburdening the child, yet by ensuring his success the school could still give him a sense of accomplishment which will promote motivation.

Imagine the outrage by disappointed parents, national and international media, etc, when a school decides not to bother teaching certain students math or science or history or language anymore and just sticks them in the woodworking shop so they can "master" it. That school would soon be forced to reverse its policies or be shut down, that's the mindset of our society. "What? My little Johnny? How DARE you suggest he's not as smart as the next kid and shouldn't learn all the math? I demand you put him back in the normal stream right now, and give him an A or I'll sue your ass!" And god forbid this happens to a "minority" student, then every newspaper in the country would carry headlines along the lines of "racist school condemns black kids to life of manual labour".

If you can't see the complete non-viability of implementing this concept in our withering society you live not in the real world but in some non-existant idealization.

[Machjo]

Quite honestly, fro my personal experience, I feel that the elementary and high schools I'd gone to seemed to assume that I was in fact going to go on to university. The point is not whether the assumption is right or not, but rather the possibility that the assumption could have been wrong and how that could have affected me in such a case.

Since you'd asked, I'll ask the question back to you. Did you find that much of your compulsory education seemed to be based on the assumption that you would in fact go on to higher education, or had you in fact learnt some kind of trade or profession, even if only entry level, before graduating from high school?

For me, that is the feeling I'd gotten, that most of my compulsory education was geared too much towards university preparation.

[ZenOps]

Yeah, its important to know if the populace will actually defend a threat to the territory.

With people like Rob Anders in government - Am I going to actively defend the local government? I'd have to say even though I've had family in the country for a century and in all honesty. No, probably not. Would I help the US or Britian to take over the Canadian government if they paid me? If they give me an island in the Caicos or Virgin Islands, I'd have to say I'd do it (But its not like the British governance generals don't already have more power anyways)

Will I defend my immediate neighbor, yes. Will I defend the English West or a French Seperated Quebec - thats a tossup. Will I defend the Arctic natives? If they want it sure.

Will I defend my own place in Canada... Maybe. I don't have 160 acres to fight for, in fact there is little reason for me to be patriotic to Canada from a capitalist standpoint (Canada has not allowed me to own a piece of Canada) If push comes to shove, I honestly think I might just ditch and go to the Bahamas.

The biggest threats are internal terrorist threats nowadays. Terrorist bombers like Wiebo Ludwig that will destroy pipelines without a second thought - it is this mentality that also puts things like offshore oilrigs like Hibernia at risk. If Wiebo had a name like Muhammed and he bombed a pipeline and killed a white boy, you know that hed be in jail for several life sentences right now.

Canada should just be lucky that I'm not actively militant on the opposing side of people like Rob Anders. Neutrality and level headedness still rule the day for now, words can still be used instead of arms.

Edited June 13, 2010 by ZenOps

[Machjo]

I think you're missing my point. It's not that I disagree with you, it's just that this area, among many others, is where our society is in unmitigated decline. Babysitting is about all our schools are still good for, and there's little point to expect anything more.

Students that are motivated to achieve something largely do so through their own initiative, regardless of what the school "teaches" (or fails to teach) them.

To address your points more directly, and why none of this is politically/societally viable:

Imagine the outrage by disappointed parents, national and international media, etc, when a school decides not to bother teaching certain students math or science or history or language anymore and just sticks them in the woodworking shop so they can "master" it. That school would soon be forced to reverse its policies or be shut down, that's the mindset of our society. "What? My little Johnny? How DARE you suggest he's not as smart as the next kid and shouldn't learn all the math? I demand you put him back in the normal stream right now, and give him an A or I'll sue your ass!" And god forbid this happens to a "minority" student, then every newspaper in the country would carry headlines along the lines of "racist school condemns black kids to life of manual labour".

If you can't see the complete non-viability of implementing this concept in our withering society you live not in the real world but in some non-existant idealization.

It's not a question of little Johnny not being able to learn maths and science, but rather that he might not see how it relates to any particular trade or profession. If he enjoys building things, then teach him matchs and science as they apply to construction, measuring the length of the wood, angles, etc.and some science behind the wood, kinds of wood, the advantages of different kinds of wood, etc. If later he changes his mind and decides to go on to enineering, some of this knowledge might be transferable, so this would not necessarily mean he's necessarily less smart than other kids nor would it necessarily have to prevent him from going on to university. however, once he's finished high school, he can perhaps work, earn money and experience, and then go on to university. Otherwise, he learns all kinds of academic subjects in high school, can't find a job afterwards, and even if he is a genius, with no money he's still not going to university.

[Machjo]

If you make parents understand this, that learning construction does not automatically disqualify him from univerisity, but that it's a practical step towards university, they might be more accepting of it.

[Bonam]

Since you'd asked, I'll ask the question back to you. Did you find that much of your compulsory education seemed to be based on the assumption that you would in fact go on to higher education, or had you in fact learnt some kind of trade or profession, even if only entry level, before graduating from high school?

Most of my compulsory education taught me things that I already knew or were trivially easy anyway. Schools couldn't teach anyone a trade or profession if they wanted to. For example, everything I learned after taking the grade 10, 11, and 12 courses in "drafting and architecture" could have been (and in my case was) learned in a one hour AutoCAD tutorial. Everything I learned in high school science realistically amounted to a few hours of reading wikipedia articles on the relevant subjects.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Bonam

[Wild Bill]

Most of my compulsory education taught me things that I already knew or were trivially easy anyway. Schools couldn't teach anyone a trade or profession if they wanted to. For example, everything I learned after taking the grade 10, 11, and 12 courses in "drafting and architecture" could have been (and in my case was) learned in a one hour AutoCAD tutorial.

I have a similar story. I was fast tracked towards academia because I was considered bright but the entire process bored the hell out of me! I was made to study books for English that I had read for myself years before. Meanwhile, I had an interest in electronics. I built my first radio when I was 11. Everything I learned about electronics I had to learn on my own! My elementary school taught nothing and my high school little beyond basic electricity. When I was finishing high school I was considering a community college for electronics rather than an Arts course at university. When I got a look at their curriculum I realized that I would have to pay tuition and sit through classes FOR TWO YEARS before I started to learn anything new! I never would have lasted. I chose university instead and bailed within my first year to go work for a rock and roll band!

We have set our schools up as some sort of assembly line to ensure a consistent baseline of the mediocre. We churn out lots of lawyers, accountants and poli-sci majors. Many personalities that would have been ideal for a good trade education are discouraged by the stigma that trades are for the "less intelligent".

The real purpose of any school should be to teach someone how to learn! Give them exposure to the basics and instill a passion for their chosen subject! If they know how to learn and how to think then they will educate themselves in a process that will continue for their entire life! I can't being to count the older doctors I have met who are woefully behind the times or the engineers that have been sitting on their butts while new technology has passed them by.

Or the academics that quite frankly COULD NOT become good tradespeople! Their inherent personalities are such that despite their innate intelligence they simply were not practical enough in their thinking to master plumbing or electricity!

Watch the show "Canada's Worst Handyman". Pay attention to what many of those inept participants actually do for a living. There are some high level academics there who earn good incomes!

All we seem to be doing with our schools is providing a good living for a large number of teachers!

Edited June 13, 2010 by Wild Bill

[ZenOps]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmNSEbgt1Dg

'nuff said about post secondary. Good, bad or otherwise.

[Bonam]

I have a similar story. I was fast tracked towards academia because I was considered bright but the entire process bored the hell out of me! I was made to study books for English that I had read for myself years before. Meanwhile, I had an interest in electronics. I built my first radio when I was 11. Everything I learned about electronics I had to learn on my own! My elementary school taught nothing and my high school little beyond basic electricity.

Yeah pretty much same here. When I was taking physics 12 (in grade 10) me and another kid would just sit at the back of the class tinkering with things. Built an electromagnetic motor and a railgun among other things.

When I was finishing high school I was considering a community college for electronics rather than an Arts course at university. When I got a look at their curriculum I realized that I would have to pay tuition and sit through classes FOR TWO YEARS before I started to learn anything new! I never would have lasted. I chose university instead and bailed within my first year to go work for a rock and roll band!

It actually becomes worth it down the road. I'm on my PhD in Aerospace Engineering right now and I've gotten to do and learn a lot of cool things. Space elevators, electric propulsion systems, fusion experiments, all very cool projects. The uselessness of high school is not indicative of the experience you'd get at a good university. My second year of undergrad we were already building robots (including all the electronics and machining), programming AI, etc. First year of my master's I built a rocket that reached 20,000 feet altitude before deploying its chutes and coming down, and collected telemetry and photos along the way.

We have set our schools up as some sort of assembly line to ensure a consistent baseline of the mediocre. We churn out lots of lawyers, accountants and poli-sci majors.

Yup, one of our society's problems.

The real purpose of any school should be to teach someone how to learn! Give them exposure to the basics and instill a passion for their chosen subject! If they know how to learn and how to think then they will educate themselves in a process that will continue for their entire life! I can't being to count the older doctors I have met who are woefully behind the times or the engineers that have been sitting on their butts while new technology has passed them by.

I agree, instilling a sense of wanting to learn, if that was the only thing a high school could do, would be worth it.

[Machjo]

The uselessness of high school is not indicative of the experience you'd get at a good university. My second year of undergrad we were already building robots (including all the electronics and machining), programming AI, etc. First year of my master's I built a rocket that reached 20,000 feet altitude before deploying its chutes and coming down, and collected telemetry and photos along the way.

This is the problem though. If for whatever reason a person cannot go on to university, college, trade school, or anything else of the sort, whether owing to financial, family, or other obstacle, material or otherwise, he's screwed. We need to ensure all children possess at least an entry level skills in some trade or profession, with any kind of higher education building on that. Otherwise, we too many fall between the cracks.

[Machjo]

Either that or make higher education free for all, but then that costs money .for that reason, I think it would be preferable to try to get them to learn a trade or profession before the end of high school, even if it's only entry level skills.

[Bonam]

This is the problem though. If for whatever reason a person cannot go on to university, college, trade school, or anything else of the sort, whether owing to financial, family, or other obstacle, material or otherwise, he's screwed. We need to ensure all children possess at least an entry level skills in some trade or profession, with any kind of higher education building on that. Otherwise, we too many fall between the cracks.

Hey, someone's gotta man all those gas stations, fast food joints, grocery stores, etc.

[Remiel]

We have set our schools up as some sort of assembly line to ensure a consistent baseline of the mediocre. We churn out lots of lawyers, accountants and poli-sci majors. Many personalities that would have been ideal for a good trade education are discouraged by the stigma that trades are for the "less intelligent".

I kind of wonder what you have against Political Science, other than perhaps there being too many people doing it. Maybe it is true that it is the sort of thing you should do paired with another subject. Or it may be that it is not the subject, but what and how it is taught that could use change. It may seem like a Political Science degree is worthless to some, but there are jobs out there where it is emminently appropriate. And, of course, as an academic area of study it is hardly somewhere where the great questions have been answered and agreed upon! Hence the need for some to keep plugging along.

The real purpose of any school should be to teach someone how to learn! Give them exposure to the basics and instill a passion for their chosen subject! If they know how to learn and how to think then they will educate themselves in a process that will continue for their entire life! I can't being to count the older doctors I have met who are woefully behind the times or the engineers that have been sitting on their butts while new technology has passed them by.

In theory, this is what a Liberal Arts education is actually better at than other sorts of degrees; teaching people how to learn. Like anything else, this process could use refinement and improvement, but even if you do not get a job in your field, there are some great transferrable skills to be found in these subjects, or at least some of them.

All we seem to be doing with our schools is providing a good living for a large number of teachers!

Something I had just thought of now: while, intuitively, this seems like a problem... the question I have to ask is, " Why? " At least insofar as capitalism is concerned, a job is a job and a product is a product. If I were cynical, I could complain that what you do, Bonam, is build fancy vacations for ridiculously rich people (e.g. space tours), even though in reality that is just hyperbole and I know that space exploration is of immense value. For some people, at least for myself, an education is not just a means to and end; it is also an end: a consumer product, like any other. And I do not think that can be condemned by anyone who believes that sports cars are a worthwhile commodity, or fancy house. More simply, unless you condemn all luxury items, someone who seeks an education as something with its own value should be just fine and dandy. Of course, most people do not see it that way (their education, that is), and for most the usual arguments about productivity may stand.

It actually becomes worth it down the road. I'm on my PhD in Aerospace Engineering right now and I've gotten to do and learn a lot of cool things. Space elevators, electric propulsion systems, fusion experiments, all very cool projects. The uselessness of high school is not indicative of the experience you'd get at a good university. My second year of undergrad we were already building robots (including all the electronics and machining), programming AI, etc. First year of my master's I built a rocket that reached 20,000 feet altitude before deploying its chutes and coming down, and collected telemetry and photos along the way.

One of my own personal experiences (and that of a friend), informs me well of how unnecessary high school is to much of university. Sciences are somewhat less forgiving in this regard, but I imagine that someone with enough wherewithal and smarts could probably learn most of what they would of gotten in high school math and sciences as they need it. That said, I am also of the opinion that numbers literacy should be thought to be as serious as letters literacy; not the sort of thing you should get through high school without.

I agree, instilling a sense of wanting to learn, if that was the only thing a high school could do, would be worth it.

I guess there is more that I could say about education. For one thing, I think it problematic that so much of what is learned, even in university, is very easy to unlearn with just a few months of not thinking about it. That is perhaps why learning how to learn is so important in the first place, so that even if you forget to know how to refresh your memory with ease.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Remiel

[Machjo]

Hey, someone's gotta man all those gas stations, fast food joints, grocery stores, etc.

Yes, but you only need so many of them. Once all those positions are full, then what? The rest of them are unemployed. If they all had to possess some trade or profession before the end of high school, some of them might still end up pumping gas, but if there are not enough jobs there, then at least they have something to fall back on. I'd rather spend more money on education than on supporting people on welfare.

[Machjo]

If you teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for a life time.

[Bonam]

If you teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for a life time.

Not if all the fish go extinct due to overfishing~

[Remiel]

One other thing: We probably should split the thread.

[Bonam]

One other thing: We probably should split the thread.

Good idea.

[Machjo]

Strangely enough, I actually see them as interrelated. If you want develop a stronger national defense, you need to promote population growth. I think eliminating abortions is a solution, though some would disagree. Another factor would be to improve education so as to increase a person's chances of success in life, thus providing more stability, thus increasing the chances of marriage, settling and having children.

So in fact, discussing ways of promoting population increase, whether via immigration, banning abortion, or improving education, are all very relevant to the whole question of national defense.

Add to that that people who are more successful in life are more likely to feel that there is something worth defending, thus increasing the chances of political support for military defense spending, not to mention that higher incomes stemming from higher productivity, stemming in part to greater skills to sell on teh market, would mean more government revenue to in fact afford a stronger military.

All of these are fully interrelated.

[Bonam]

So in fact, discussing ways of promoting population increase, whether via immigration, banning abortion, or improving education, are all very relevant to the whole question of national defense.

All the data I've ever seen show that more educated people have less children, not more.

[Remiel]

...Stuff...

Practically everything you just said was completely sdrawkcab ssa, or just wrong. Bonam pointed out the real correlation between education and children. Also, the more a person has, as far as I can see, the more likely they are to want someone else to do the hard work of defending it. Eliminating abortions would probably increase poverty and decrease education as men and women persuing higher education have to drop out of school to take care of children that they did not want... yet.

[Peter F]

So in other words, it's preferable to have a small tax base supporting an army that has to defend the second largest country in the world?

I can hear the printing presses at the Bank of Canada revving up as I type.

The truth of the matter is, we cannot afford an army capable of defending all Canadian territory with the population and tax base we currently have. If the goal is to expand our military, then we first have to expand our tax base, and that comes via more births or more immigration. Take your pick.

Why not form press-gangs to gather up folks and ship them up north to work the mines and such?

[Bonam]

Why not form press-gangs to gather up folks and ship them up north to work the mines and such?

Not a very efficient process.