I guess you are a teacher so it is more of a rhetorical question, but have you seen the writing of high school students these days? It seems pretty horrid if you ask me and really lacks critical thinking skills. I had to judge some science based proposals by high school students and it was quite painful
Oh and I guess I could amend it to say "research" is the subject that should be taught and emphasized. Students should be able to find valid resources, be able to learn what valid resources consist of and be able to utilize them. If kids have some levels of writing, comprehension and are able to do proper research then they would be able to learn other subjects.
Is it a cop out to say none of them are more important than the others?
1) English (assuming you are living in a primarily english speaking country, otherwise it'd be the language of that country) - Writing and comprehension is the key to everything. If you can read, write and understand, you can learn other subjects. Also, if you can't, your job outlook is pretty poor.
2) Math - Math is another basic. Now you may not need calculus but math applies to a lot of areas including personal finance which many people fail at. If you do poorly in math, you'd also probably do poorly in the sciences as well.
I should also say I don't have any kids
Another strong vote for leenak's two thoughtful posts.
I worked as a teacher at university (history and politics) for twenty years. While I'm a big fan of the study of history (it teaches respect for facts, and empirical evidence, it enables the development of mental perspective, allows for the growth of skills of analytical thinking & critical analysis, as well as skills of research; above all, it teaches skills of how to write an essay - i.e. how to argue or make a case using data that you have obtained or located, or found, or unearthed, or discovered, or been directed to....), at a more basic level, without the tools of the trade, the ability to use language with sufficient confidence and ease to describe what you want to say, and to be able to make an argument or case, it is hard to do any job that requires the cultivating of a mental landscape.
When I started teaching, I felt that the 'typical' university student had the vocabulary of an average 15 year old; at a stretch (and certainly, by the time they graduated some years later), they could make the leap to describing adult concepts, but, initially, it was a bit difficult for them. There was nothing wrong with their brains. They understood perfectly well what was going on in the classroom, they just lacked the tools to sufficiently analyse, describe or debate the material under discussion. By the time they graduated, in general, they were perfectly competent, but I was surprised at how much of my time as a lecturer was spent teaching students how to write essays; I would tell them that it is not just a test of what they know about the given topic, but was a test of how they used the information that they had acquired or amassed to make an argument or case for what they wanted to say.
By the time I last darkened the door of a classroom, it had become my view that the 'typical' undergraduate had the vocabulary of a twelve to thirteen year old. Nothing wrong with that, except that they lacked the tools to deal with the material they had to explore and learn. A twelve year old's vocabulary is not sufficient to deal with adult ideas and concepts in any sort of in depth way.
A very strong vote for the above. Even reading some of the posts on MR reveals an appalling lack of critical reasoning skills, let alone writing skills.
If you can read and COMPREHEND, and think rationally, learning anything else becomes a matter of application.
Also, back in the day, learning to use the Library properly was essential. I guess that's not as important today.
Again, I agree completely with you.
