School or Prison(schoolprison.com)
schoolprison.com
School or Prison
https://www.schoolprison.com/
496 comments
Both are often government contracts so they are often going to attract the same firms and contractors. They share a lot of the same requirements; large and cheap. The exterior facade needs to be easy to construct and unremarkable in that government building kind of way.
As someone who's been to prison and school, lots of comments here sound pretty tone deaf. Prison in the USA is really bad. Yes school is authoritarian, but most popular entertainment on prisons downplays how bad it really gets. Watch some interviews of people who have actually been to prison. Murder and rape is common (I saw it happen), you will get your possessions stolen under the threat of murder/rape, you'll probably spend 10-30% of your time in solitary confinement for reasons outside your control (torture according to human rights groups: I've been there, I'd prefer nonpermanent torture), you have to learn violence and get into fights with people who might be carrying a knife or else get taken advantage of indefinitely, ... It's bad. And psychologically, you have no freedom whatsoever: no you cannot poop or drink water whenever you want to. You can only poop when your cellie isn't around (1-2h/day). You will be abused by prison staff (false accusations, physical abuse, food deprivation, ..)
The whole thing is an abomination. It serves no useful purpose to society to subject most criminals to prison: it doesn't serve as a deterrent (based on talking to ~50 prisoners about this), it only radicalizes them further against "the system", making it easier for them to break further laws.
Why don't we have more outrage against this outdated institution created out of 1600 era values?
The amount of human suffering it creates... It's astounding. Most prisoners would probably rather a super old school punishment like chopping off their arm over the prison sentence they get. And it would be more effective.
The whole thing is an abomination. It serves no useful purpose to society to subject most criminals to prison: it doesn't serve as a deterrent (based on talking to ~50 prisoners about this), it only radicalizes them further against "the system", making it easier for them to break further laws.
Why don't we have more outrage against this outdated institution created out of 1600 era values?
The amount of human suffering it creates... It's astounding. Most prisoners would probably rather a super old school punishment like chopping off their arm over the prison sentence they get. And it would be more effective.
Thank you for posting this. I couldn’t believe the other comments trying to equate schools with prison. It’s unbelievable how we treat prisoners in the US. I wish there was more I could do than vote and donate to causes like the ACLU. Starting to realize that my beliefs are in the minority re: how to treat fellow countrymen, even those who have committed crimes.
I think it's because we as people tend to speak from our experiences, and I do agree that school is more authoritarian than it should be.
I'm not sure what else you can do :( it's a really big systemic issue. I think we just need more awareness, first?
Social life in prison involves having "friends" who can any day decide to try and rob or fight you (both happened to me with my closest "friend"). Nobody has real friends. It's dog eat dog, you lose the ability to trust, and don't have any trusting social connections. That's extremely painful. When you talk to people on the outside, every prisoner just tries to deceive them into thinking things are just dandy: I'm not sure why that happens, but it means those connections aren't real either. It's all so much worse psychologically than is conveyed in popular media. We don't know how to quantify psychological suffering though; as a society we rather put people through huge amounts of that than some visible physical suffering (which, again, is probably strongly preferable to the criminal).
Unfortunately most of the people suffering in the prison system are poor, so we don't hear what they have to say. If you're rich, you can afford your own lawyer and get a much better plea deal, and get out quickly. It's also very racist: you will really understand Black Lives Matter when you meet a black father who was sentenced to 30 years in prison for a nonviolent drug offense, and realize there are 100,000s - millions of people in the exact same situation: it's destroying entire communities. I've seen the way black people who a judge has never seen before are villified from their appearance: go to a courtroom near you if you don't believe me, it's shocking. I'm talking about in San Francisco, not even a rural area.
Anyways, thank you for your empathy. I wish more people understood that criminals will commit less crime if they're forgiven and accepted by society, instead of villified. And it's also the decent thing to do. Prisons are bad cultures because the small number of actual bad actors push everything to this shitty equilibrium: most prisoners individually have a lot of shame about their crimes, and as strong a moral code as the average person. Some definitely do not: and it's hard for the justice system to make the distinction.
All things which are hard to believe until you have some real world experience with these things...
I'm not sure what else you can do :( it's a really big systemic issue. I think we just need more awareness, first?
Social life in prison involves having "friends" who can any day decide to try and rob or fight you (both happened to me with my closest "friend"). Nobody has real friends. It's dog eat dog, you lose the ability to trust, and don't have any trusting social connections. That's extremely painful. When you talk to people on the outside, every prisoner just tries to deceive them into thinking things are just dandy: I'm not sure why that happens, but it means those connections aren't real either. It's all so much worse psychologically than is conveyed in popular media. We don't know how to quantify psychological suffering though; as a society we rather put people through huge amounts of that than some visible physical suffering (which, again, is probably strongly preferable to the criminal).
Unfortunately most of the people suffering in the prison system are poor, so we don't hear what they have to say. If you're rich, you can afford your own lawyer and get a much better plea deal, and get out quickly. It's also very racist: you will really understand Black Lives Matter when you meet a black father who was sentenced to 30 years in prison for a nonviolent drug offense, and realize there are 100,000s - millions of people in the exact same situation: it's destroying entire communities. I've seen the way black people who a judge has never seen before are villified from their appearance: go to a courtroom near you if you don't believe me, it's shocking. I'm talking about in San Francisco, not even a rural area.
Anyways, thank you for your empathy. I wish more people understood that criminals will commit less crime if they're forgiven and accepted by society, instead of villified. And it's also the decent thing to do. Prisons are bad cultures because the small number of actual bad actors push everything to this shitty equilibrium: most prisoners individually have a lot of shame about their crimes, and as strong a moral code as the average person. Some definitely do not: and it's hard for the justice system to make the distinction.
All things which are hard to believe until you have some real world experience with these things...
> I'm not sure what else you can do :( it's a really big systemic issue. I think we just need more awareness, first?
As someone who has gone through the legal system in the US and was illegally detained for activism and then later accused of false charges (with no evidence) and illegally arrested: I don't think awareness alone will do anything. Everyone knows the Police are corrupt and the city will do little to nothing if they are caught committing these abuses--the officer who stood on George's neck had several prior complaints for violence in his department and was still allowed to work as an officer.
The BLM movement to me is and will always remain a Police abuse issue first and foremost: one that was highlighted because of the death of George Floyd, but was yet another reminder that Police are in a position in which their crimes are exempt from actual punishment due to qualified immunity, and they know that and behave as such.
In CO after the protests from Floyd's death the Police had their quality immunity removed [0] for abuses they would commit against protesters and were recorded for everyone to see as it became very clear they had no intention of hiding how egregious things got but this only addressed the issues that happened from 2020 onward. There are cases of physical violence and as you said what is likely torture of people who were detained/restrained in which the State refused to prosecute the officers for despite having the evidence and had to be taken to the Supreme Court before it was heard [1]. This case was only settled out of court with the COUNTY paying $400,000 (which is really to say people like me in Boulder) and the police involved were not even punished. The female officer in the video seen abusing the women was the same person who handled my transfer to my hearing from my cell and refused to allow me to make a phone call at a time when they refused to tell me my charges when I was brought in.
Honestly, defunding the police and slashing their pay based on actual performance based reviews are the real starting point, and using social workers instead of Police for mental health cases has been experimented with favorable results in CO. Scaling that would be the next meaningful step to eventually have a bare-bones, non-militarized police force as that at least has the right incentives in place. But that may be a pipe dream in the US at this point.
One need to only look at France to see what and how Civil Society is actually maintained and it starts with keeping Police in a very confined and constrained leash and reminding them of their limited role, which sometimes means rioting and revolting against police abuse to remove poor legislation from passing.
> Unfortunately most of the people suffering in the prison system are poor, so we don't hear what they have to say. If you're rich, you can afford your own lawyer and get a much better plea deal, and get out quickly. It's also very racist:
Incredibly so, the DA of my last case never even bothered to look at the incriminating footage of the officer abusing his authority and clearly violating private property laws and abusing my civil liabilities for unsubstantiated allegations. And I HAD a Lawyer, upon release because I couldn't speak to one while I was arrested, and had it known I was willing to be compliant with the questioning process before being illegally arrested provided my attorney was present before I spoke to anyone, as its my (supposed) Right to do so.
My case was eventually dismissed after 2 missed court dates by the DA who finally looked at the body cam footage and I had my career placed in jeopardy, an injury I still deal with to this day as well as well as the trauma from the abuse and the embarrassment of the arrest as it happen at work for all to see because an officer thought they are John Wayne and knew they never face punishment for their crimes... in addition to a significant legal bill for the privilege of it all.
My only recourse was to lawyer up again and pay 10s of thousands of dollars to a Civil Rights attorney after paying for my defense attorney and take the case as high as the Supreme Court like the other women did before a settlement would even be considered, at which point most of the legal/court fees had already eaten through most of the settlement money. There are no heroes in this system, and Lawyers are just as much responsible for perpetuating this corrupt system as the corrupt judges and officers.
And this is all told from an innocent person's perspective, actual convicted criminals get hung to dry and are seldom if ever allowed to return to Society without being constantly denied the ability to live a normal life in Society anymore, while the criminals with badges commit comparable crimes with impunity.
Honestly, BLM protests need to return and be far more targeted, as in localized to city counsels and mayors/governors offices/homes instead of looting department stores before anything serious is done. COVID may be dangerous, but Police are likely the greater danger to overall safety in Society if you know how the system really works--and while its an unpopular opinion for some, this applies to white people, too. We all saw how even members of International media were treated, and felt only the superficial outrage that people who have been victimized by the legal system have.
I have several horror stories of white middle class women in Boulder being abused by the Legal system, too, and further drives the point that this is not a solely a Black issue. I saw the systematic destruction of these People's lives during my arrest and the first hearing: armed police showed up to one woman's home for a reported car accident against a bicyclist days after it took place, and another of an owner of a home being arrested and forced out of her own home in cuffs when a guest made allegations of her threatening to use force to remove the guest who overstayed and refused to leave all while her underage children were still in the home with that person.
It's completely abysmal and terrifying to be honest.
0: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/12/18/colorado-tries...
1: https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/boulder-county-sett...
As someone who has gone through the legal system in the US and was illegally detained for activism and then later accused of false charges (with no evidence) and illegally arrested: I don't think awareness alone will do anything. Everyone knows the Police are corrupt and the city will do little to nothing if they are caught committing these abuses--the officer who stood on George's neck had several prior complaints for violence in his department and was still allowed to work as an officer.
The BLM movement to me is and will always remain a Police abuse issue first and foremost: one that was highlighted because of the death of George Floyd, but was yet another reminder that Police are in a position in which their crimes are exempt from actual punishment due to qualified immunity, and they know that and behave as such.
In CO after the protests from Floyd's death the Police had their quality immunity removed [0] for abuses they would commit against protesters and were recorded for everyone to see as it became very clear they had no intention of hiding how egregious things got but this only addressed the issues that happened from 2020 onward. There are cases of physical violence and as you said what is likely torture of people who were detained/restrained in which the State refused to prosecute the officers for despite having the evidence and had to be taken to the Supreme Court before it was heard [1]. This case was only settled out of court with the COUNTY paying $400,000 (which is really to say people like me in Boulder) and the police involved were not even punished. The female officer in the video seen abusing the women was the same person who handled my transfer to my hearing from my cell and refused to allow me to make a phone call at a time when they refused to tell me my charges when I was brought in.
Honestly, defunding the police and slashing their pay based on actual performance based reviews are the real starting point, and using social workers instead of Police for mental health cases has been experimented with favorable results in CO. Scaling that would be the next meaningful step to eventually have a bare-bones, non-militarized police force as that at least has the right incentives in place. But that may be a pipe dream in the US at this point.
One need to only look at France to see what and how Civil Society is actually maintained and it starts with keeping Police in a very confined and constrained leash and reminding them of their limited role, which sometimes means rioting and revolting against police abuse to remove poor legislation from passing.
> Unfortunately most of the people suffering in the prison system are poor, so we don't hear what they have to say. If you're rich, you can afford your own lawyer and get a much better plea deal, and get out quickly. It's also very racist:
Incredibly so, the DA of my last case never even bothered to look at the incriminating footage of the officer abusing his authority and clearly violating private property laws and abusing my civil liabilities for unsubstantiated allegations. And I HAD a Lawyer, upon release because I couldn't speak to one while I was arrested, and had it known I was willing to be compliant with the questioning process before being illegally arrested provided my attorney was present before I spoke to anyone, as its my (supposed) Right to do so.
My case was eventually dismissed after 2 missed court dates by the DA who finally looked at the body cam footage and I had my career placed in jeopardy, an injury I still deal with to this day as well as well as the trauma from the abuse and the embarrassment of the arrest as it happen at work for all to see because an officer thought they are John Wayne and knew they never face punishment for their crimes... in addition to a significant legal bill for the privilege of it all.
My only recourse was to lawyer up again and pay 10s of thousands of dollars to a Civil Rights attorney after paying for my defense attorney and take the case as high as the Supreme Court like the other women did before a settlement would even be considered, at which point most of the legal/court fees had already eaten through most of the settlement money. There are no heroes in this system, and Lawyers are just as much responsible for perpetuating this corrupt system as the corrupt judges and officers.
And this is all told from an innocent person's perspective, actual convicted criminals get hung to dry and are seldom if ever allowed to return to Society without being constantly denied the ability to live a normal life in Society anymore, while the criminals with badges commit comparable crimes with impunity.
Honestly, BLM protests need to return and be far more targeted, as in localized to city counsels and mayors/governors offices/homes instead of looting department stores before anything serious is done. COVID may be dangerous, but Police are likely the greater danger to overall safety in Society if you know how the system really works--and while its an unpopular opinion for some, this applies to white people, too. We all saw how even members of International media were treated, and felt only the superficial outrage that people who have been victimized by the legal system have.
I have several horror stories of white middle class women in Boulder being abused by the Legal system, too, and further drives the point that this is not a solely a Black issue. I saw the systematic destruction of these People's lives during my arrest and the first hearing: armed police showed up to one woman's home for a reported car accident against a bicyclist days after it took place, and another of an owner of a home being arrested and forced out of her own home in cuffs when a guest made allegations of her threatening to use force to remove the guest who overstayed and refused to leave all while her underage children were still in the home with that person.
It's completely abysmal and terrifying to be honest.
0: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/12/18/colorado-tries...
1: https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/boulder-county-sett...
What do you think is the solution to this problem?
Reading stories like this just makes me angry.
Reading stories like this just makes me angry.
It's going to be a lengthy process and should be assessed from various approaches but I think the following would be a start:
- Removing qualified immunity from all LEO agencies and departments at the the State and federal Level and making them 100% personally legally and financially liable for all violations.
- Require a more stringent screening and continued training process to ensure they are mentally fit to do their job adequately
- Slash their budget and salaries by 50% until these reforms meet certain benchmarks that require unanimous approval in their city/county before any budget increase by no more than 5% each time, which is to be decided how it is funded without police union and lobbyist influence
- Using those funds removed by police budgets and allocated to social workers to act as first responders to calls that pertain to all mental health related issues, and contrast which solutions perform better and allot the budget/funds to those perform better using various metrics and analytics
- Mandate that body-cam footage be on at all times during an LEO's shift in office as well as on patrol and have it accessible to the people without interference--they tried to stall my process until my lawyer got involved which is typical to ensure that a case isn't brought against the officer
- Stop incentivizing mentally unfit and psychologically damaged people to enter LEO: most of them are ex-military veterans that saw active duty in illegal wars of occupation in Afghanistan, and Iraq and were trained for hostile warfare and not civilian Law Enforcement. Screening for certain mental and psychological maladies would probably reveal how mentally ill some of these people are as a result of their combat and trauma.
Personally speaking, I had high hopes for the BLM movement and the situation that unfolded (Blue leaks) in regards to Police brutality this summer but everyone just went back to the divisive identity politics leading up to the election instead of having a commonly held stance that transcends all party politics.
Most people do not realize that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have long history of further expanding the Police State. Biden passed the Crime Bill in the 90s that saw the expansion of the for profit jail system that led to lengthy sentences for petty things like drug possession crimes--all while his son turned out to be a drug addict that used his father's position to collude with other cronys for personal gain. And Harris was an immensely corrupt Attorney General that overturned many cases in regards to police corruption using unscrupulous methods and supposedly made evidence disappear to absolve police from wrong doing.
I don't know if and when people will have had enough to actually do anything and get involved anymore, but the issues discussed so far are simply symptoms of a much deeper systemic governance problem and begins with who and how elected officials are put into those positions of power and how limited options there are for any recourse for non-incumbents or established career politicians to be elected in the first place.
The US showed itself to be a Police state over the Summer, that cannot be denied.
The question is what are YOU willing to do about it and how many people in your community can you get involved and start from there. I'd make an argument for private policing, but that would require a resolve for direct activism to serve as a counter weight to these atrocities that the US populace doesn't possess anymore. And honestly given what we've seen with Blackwater/XE in private military contracting I'm sure the US would find a way to normalize this same system in the Police all over aain
- Removing qualified immunity from all LEO agencies and departments at the the State and federal Level and making them 100% personally legally and financially liable for all violations.
- Require a more stringent screening and continued training process to ensure they are mentally fit to do their job adequately
- Slash their budget and salaries by 50% until these reforms meet certain benchmarks that require unanimous approval in their city/county before any budget increase by no more than 5% each time, which is to be decided how it is funded without police union and lobbyist influence
- Using those funds removed by police budgets and allocated to social workers to act as first responders to calls that pertain to all mental health related issues, and contrast which solutions perform better and allot the budget/funds to those perform better using various metrics and analytics
- Mandate that body-cam footage be on at all times during an LEO's shift in office as well as on patrol and have it accessible to the people without interference--they tried to stall my process until my lawyer got involved which is typical to ensure that a case isn't brought against the officer
- Stop incentivizing mentally unfit and psychologically damaged people to enter LEO: most of them are ex-military veterans that saw active duty in illegal wars of occupation in Afghanistan, and Iraq and were trained for hostile warfare and not civilian Law Enforcement. Screening for certain mental and psychological maladies would probably reveal how mentally ill some of these people are as a result of their combat and trauma.
Personally speaking, I had high hopes for the BLM movement and the situation that unfolded (Blue leaks) in regards to Police brutality this summer but everyone just went back to the divisive identity politics leading up to the election instead of having a commonly held stance that transcends all party politics.
Most people do not realize that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have long history of further expanding the Police State. Biden passed the Crime Bill in the 90s that saw the expansion of the for profit jail system that led to lengthy sentences for petty things like drug possession crimes--all while his son turned out to be a drug addict that used his father's position to collude with other cronys for personal gain. And Harris was an immensely corrupt Attorney General that overturned many cases in regards to police corruption using unscrupulous methods and supposedly made evidence disappear to absolve police from wrong doing.
I don't know if and when people will have had enough to actually do anything and get involved anymore, but the issues discussed so far are simply symptoms of a much deeper systemic governance problem and begins with who and how elected officials are put into those positions of power and how limited options there are for any recourse for non-incumbents or established career politicians to be elected in the first place.
The US showed itself to be a Police state over the Summer, that cannot be denied.
The question is what are YOU willing to do about it and how many people in your community can you get involved and start from there. I'd make an argument for private policing, but that would require a resolve for direct activism to serve as a counter weight to these atrocities that the US populace doesn't possess anymore. And honestly given what we've seen with Blackwater/XE in private military contracting I'm sure the US would find a way to normalize this same system in the Police all over aain
I want to chime in here and reiterate your words. Being arrested sucks, and the police in general sucks. Out of say the 10 most violent acts to happen to me personally, the police is responsible for like 7, and did not help in the other 3. When I see a police me go to reaction is to be afraid and try to minimize the risk of interaction. How is it that we allow an organization to walk freely that terrorizes many (most?) people they encounter?
I was arrested in San Francisco back in 2011, it was the most violent act to ever happen to me by far. It was my first time in the city and I was at a protest. Usually it is really easy to avoid arrest in a protest, however that night the police did not give us a choice, rounded us all up and arrested the lot of us. I had my life with me in two bags, apparently you are only allowed to be arrested with one bag, the police suggested that I needed to abandon one (in civil terms this is called theft).
They put us in a petty wagon and drove us around for probably an hour, we couldn’t see out, so for all I know we were being driven out of the city (after being released I found out that we were driven 15min walking distance away from the protest site). I was really scared I wouldn’t be able to get back to the city during this.
We were all detained under a freeway pass in two cages, segregated by the gender the police assigned to us. While detained nobody was allowed water or toilet brakes at first, and then only one person at a time. I never got to go to the toiled during the whole ordeal.
They charged me with a misdemeanor called Illegal lodging (whatever that is). They assigned a court date 3 months into the future. As someone that didn’t live in the state (and even the country) it felt like they were setting me up to do an impossible task. However they dropped the charges before the court date (without telling me though).
Now I in the process of immigrating to the USA, and whenever they ask me if I have ever been arrested/detained, I have to answer “yes”, even though—as far as the justice system is concerned—I have committed no crime, and then I have to explain to them that, yes, I was arrested for a misdemeanor, and then provide documents from the courts that the charges were dropped. A lawyer once told me that many people fall for this and provide the arrest records in an attempt to disclose but fail to show the court records, and are denied as a result.
And when I think about all this, what sucks even more, is that my experience was pretty mild. Hundreds of people have far worse violence inflicted on them by the police then I did a decade ago.
My question is is always: “Why are they doing this, what is the point?” and the only logical answer I can think of is that they really love treating people like shit. The only logical explanation for their behavior is that they are facists. They hate people other then them self. The police really has to be abolished.
I was arrested in San Francisco back in 2011, it was the most violent act to ever happen to me by far. It was my first time in the city and I was at a protest. Usually it is really easy to avoid arrest in a protest, however that night the police did not give us a choice, rounded us all up and arrested the lot of us. I had my life with me in two bags, apparently you are only allowed to be arrested with one bag, the police suggested that I needed to abandon one (in civil terms this is called theft).
They put us in a petty wagon and drove us around for probably an hour, we couldn’t see out, so for all I know we were being driven out of the city (after being released I found out that we were driven 15min walking distance away from the protest site). I was really scared I wouldn’t be able to get back to the city during this.
We were all detained under a freeway pass in two cages, segregated by the gender the police assigned to us. While detained nobody was allowed water or toilet brakes at first, and then only one person at a time. I never got to go to the toiled during the whole ordeal.
They charged me with a misdemeanor called Illegal lodging (whatever that is). They assigned a court date 3 months into the future. As someone that didn’t live in the state (and even the country) it felt like they were setting me up to do an impossible task. However they dropped the charges before the court date (without telling me though).
Now I in the process of immigrating to the USA, and whenever they ask me if I have ever been arrested/detained, I have to answer “yes”, even though—as far as the justice system is concerned—I have committed no crime, and then I have to explain to them that, yes, I was arrested for a misdemeanor, and then provide documents from the courts that the charges were dropped. A lawyer once told me that many people fall for this and provide the arrest records in an attempt to disclose but fail to show the court records, and are denied as a result.
And when I think about all this, what sucks even more, is that my experience was pretty mild. Hundreds of people have far worse violence inflicted on them by the police then I did a decade ago.
My question is is always: “Why are they doing this, what is the point?” and the only logical answer I can think of is that they really love treating people like shit. The only logical explanation for their behavior is that they are facists. They hate people other then them self. The police really has to be abolished.
Wow. No words. Thank you for sharing this.
For those who were wondering here’s the US recidivism rates as of 2018.
Smells like success...
- An estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years.
- Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an arrest within 3 years of release were arrested during years 4 through 9.
- More than three-quarters (77%) of released drug ofenders were arrested for a non-drug crime within 9 years.
- Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested during the frst year following release, while 24% were arrested during year-9.
- Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the 9-year period were arrested within the frst 3 years.
Source: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf
Smells like success...
- An estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years.
- Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an arrest within 3 years of release were arrested during years 4 through 9.
- More than three-quarters (77%) of released drug ofenders were arrested for a non-drug crime within 9 years.
- Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested during the frst year following release, while 24% were arrested during year-9.
- Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the 9-year period were arrested within the frst 3 years.
Source: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf
I am one of the lucky ones who never went back.
I got out over 20 years ago, and I was determined to do whatever it took to successfully complete my parole and put all that crap behind me.
I still have scars. I'm 47 now. Dentures are in my near future because of the fighting from my prison days.
I had nightmares about the fighting and killing (saw two guys get killed mere feet away from me) for 15 years after getting out.
As time goes by the memories are less and less, but they never go away.
It changes you permanently.
I got out over 20 years ago, and I was determined to do whatever it took to successfully complete my parole and put all that crap behind me.
I still have scars. I'm 47 now. Dentures are in my near future because of the fighting from my prison days.
I had nightmares about the fighting and killing (saw two guys get killed mere feet away from me) for 15 years after getting out.
As time goes by the memories are less and less, but they never go away.
It changes you permanently.
Okay, this are good numbers. However, I would also draw your attention to Table 7. Only about half of the prisoners released who were re-arrested were re-arrested for violent crimes. So, the question I ask is, are these released prisoners actually getting the support they need to succeed after release, are are they so weighed down by the stigma of prison that they can't reasonably obtain a non-criminal life?
Absolutely the latter. There simply isn't any support for the vast majority of people.
Yes, you can argue that some communities have support groups or employment opportunities specific for ex-prisoners, but this isn't available universally, isn't well funded, and most people won't turn to help even if it's offered. That last part is true of free people as well: think of how many people in need refuse to reach out.
The stigma is real and crime is only ever a few inches away from most people.
Yes, you can argue that some communities have support groups or employment opportunities specific for ex-prisoners, but this isn't available universally, isn't well funded, and most people won't turn to help even if it's offered. That last part is true of free people as well: think of how many people in need refuse to reach out.
The stigma is real and crime is only ever a few inches away from most people.
I recall there was a study a few years back that claimed real recidivism rates were actually much lower than commonly stated due to a selection bias effect.
Here are the slides: https://www.bgcheckinfo.org/sites/default/files/public/5thMt...
Here are the slides: https://www.bgcheckinfo.org/sites/default/files/public/5thMt...
That PDF you gave makes such an excellent argument that I thought it would be helpful to quote the best part:
"When criminologists examine prison populations, they see a concentration of repeat offenders, most of whom will recidivate. Low-risk offenders enter and exit prison once, so in any survey of a prison stock, low-risk offenders are underrepresented as a proportion of the offender population.
An analogy is helpful: A Mall Exit Survey
Survey researchers sometimes use mall exit surveys to estimate shoppers’ purchasing habits.
Suppose that:
•25% of mall visitors go to the mall once per day.
•25% go once per week.
•25% go once per month.
•25% go once per year.
A naïve one week exit survey of visitors exiting the mall will find that:
•85% of mall visitors go to the mall once per day.
•12% go once per week.
•3% go once per month.
•Fewer than 1% go once per year.
The problem is that high-rate mall visitors churn, leaving an impression that most shoppers are frequent visitors."
Quoted from "Criminal Recidivism: Most Incarcerated Offenders do not Return to Prison", by William Rhodes, from the link in parent
"When criminologists examine prison populations, they see a concentration of repeat offenders, most of whom will recidivate. Low-risk offenders enter and exit prison once, so in any survey of a prison stock, low-risk offenders are underrepresented as a proportion of the offender population.
An analogy is helpful: A Mall Exit Survey
Survey researchers sometimes use mall exit surveys to estimate shoppers’ purchasing habits.
Suppose that:
•25% of mall visitors go to the mall once per day.
•25% go once per week.
•25% go once per month.
•25% go once per year.
A naïve one week exit survey of visitors exiting the mall will find that:
•85% of mall visitors go to the mall once per day.
•12% go once per week.
•3% go once per month.
•Fewer than 1% go once per year.
The problem is that high-rate mall visitors churn, leaving an impression that most shoppers are frequent visitors."
Quoted from "Criminal Recidivism: Most Incarcerated Offenders do not Return to Prison", by William Rhodes, from the link in parent
Interesting.
But the slides still find evidence of recidivism using a less biased offender-based analysis. Moreover they find that the people are still more likely to return to prison the longer they have stayed in prison. The numbers are lower, but are definitely there. Ancestor’s claim about prisons creating criminals still stands.
Then there is the issue of low level drug offenders returning to prison for violent crimes in the next round. It would be interesting to see the numbers on that.
But the slides still find evidence of recidivism using a less biased offender-based analysis. Moreover they find that the people are still more likely to return to prison the longer they have stayed in prison. The numbers are lower, but are definitely there. Ancestor’s claim about prisons creating criminals still stands.
Then there is the issue of low level drug offenders returning to prison for violent crimes in the next round. It would be interesting to see the numbers on that.
what's the counterfactual? How can you tell the difference between "criminals are undeterred by prison and will commit offenses no matter what" and "prison hardens criminals and does not help with their reinsertion"?
You can test that by looking at data from countries with less abusive prison systems. IIRC, they typically have much lower recidivism rates.
That 100% ignores cultural, education, diversity, and tons of other issues.
Yea, I bet recidivism is low in Norway, who also has a very small chapter of MS13 or whatever gang you like, coincidentally.
I disagree you can look to some other country and make a fair comparison. The only way to do it would be to look at rates before and after some policy change.
Yea, I bet recidivism is low in Norway, who also has a very small chapter of MS13 or whatever gang you like, coincidentally.
I disagree you can look to some other country and make a fair comparison. The only way to do it would be to look at rates before and after some policy change.
It sounds like you’re claiming that the US just has more criminals per capita.
There’s a reason we have so many violent gangs in the US. We don’t take care of people the way other countries do, and we take advantage of every marginalized population we can.
There’s a reason we have so many violent gangs in the US. We don’t take care of people the way other countries do, and we take advantage of every marginalized population we can.
Except that you can't do that either because someone acting in bad faith can just say that there were other confounders, because there will always be other confounders, since we can't make a proper control group out of a society. Immigration/emigration, other policy changes on county/state/federal level, delayed effects of 30-year old policies (such as Roe vs. Wade or banning lead in gasoline), etc. There's no such thing as fair comparisons in the social sciences; we can only and have to act on imperfect information.
What has diversity got to do with anything? Australia is a country of immigrants with people for all over the world living with dramatically less crime per capital than the US. Are you claiming that certain races or cultures are somehow inherently more criminal? If yes please provide evidence.
See if you can get involved in a community outreach program or similar.
A friend was in a therapy theater program that operated at San Quentin. They helped the prisoners write and act in theater pieces. At the end of the program, one of the prisoners, a lifer, told her that it had given his life meaning for the first time since sentencing. He'd been in for something like 15 years. I can't imagine how it would feel to find out you made such a difference for someone.
The US prison system is a terrible thing. That our society derives jokes about the atrocities within really shows the depravity of its citizenry.
A friend was in a therapy theater program that operated at San Quentin. They helped the prisoners write and act in theater pieces. At the end of the program, one of the prisoners, a lifer, told her that it had given his life meaning for the first time since sentencing. He'd been in for something like 15 years. I can't imagine how it would feel to find out you made such a difference for someone.
The US prison system is a terrible thing. That our society derives jokes about the atrocities within really shows the depravity of its citizenry.
> it doesn't serve as a deterrent (based on talking to ~50 prisoners about this)
1. Talking to prisoners doesn't mean it's not a deterrent for the rest of the population. This is a massive selection bias, it's like saying diet and exercise doesn't work because morbidly obese people say it doesn't work for them.
2. People sometimes lie (often first to themselves), especially about their motivations. This is like an angry teenager yelling that all their rebellion is because of their parents' rules, it's often a self-serving rationalisation.
3. There's no doubt that the US prison system is a bit weird if you compare it to the rest of the world.
1. Talking to prisoners doesn't mean it's not a deterrent for the rest of the population. This is a massive selection bias, it's like saying diet and exercise doesn't work because morbidly obese people say it doesn't work for them.
2. People sometimes lie (often first to themselves), especially about their motivations. This is like an angry teenager yelling that all their rebellion is because of their parents' rules, it's often a self-serving rationalisation.
3. There's no doubt that the US prison system is a bit weird if you compare it to the rest of the world.
Most people who end up in prisoners in the USA are reoffenders. The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world and very high crime rates.
So when I talk about deterrence I'm mostly talking about reoffenders. I.e, the prisoners I talked to coming back. I think they're more likely to commit crimes after prison, not less!!
Do you think people would lie, in a heavily monitored prison, about wanting to never come back to prison because they'll "die in glory" in a gun fight against the cops next time so they can't be arrested? Or about becoming a drug kingpin? Sounds like you think I'm saying these people were claiming nice things about themselves, but really they're mostly claiming quite bad things if it makes me think they're going to be back and were strongly negatively influenced by peers in prison.
On the topic of regular people who prison serves as a deterrent for, I'd look at other countries where crime rates are lower without the same hideous institution. Clearly it's not just horrible prisons which prevent noncriminals from committing crime, since so many countries don't have that? I guess that's up for debate.
So when I talk about deterrence I'm mostly talking about reoffenders. I.e, the prisoners I talked to coming back. I think they're more likely to commit crimes after prison, not less!!
Do you think people would lie, in a heavily monitored prison, about wanting to never come back to prison because they'll "die in glory" in a gun fight against the cops next time so they can't be arrested? Or about becoming a drug kingpin? Sounds like you think I'm saying these people were claiming nice things about themselves, but really they're mostly claiming quite bad things if it makes me think they're going to be back and were strongly negatively influenced by peers in prison.
On the topic of regular people who prison serves as a deterrent for, I'd look at other countries where crime rates are lower without the same hideous institution. Clearly it's not just horrible prisons which prevent noncriminals from committing crime, since so many countries don't have that? I guess that's up for debate.
The problem as I see it is politicians don’t want to be the person legislating prison reform when it is so easy for their opponents to blame a horrendous crime on their “soft on crime” stance. I do think prison is at least a partial deterrent for me and my actions but it’s certainly not my main motivation for my actions. The problem with prison is the permanent stigma and lack of options for those with criminal records. Without much hope for success it’s easy to see why folks would be likely to reoffend.
On the other hand, a lot of the "tough on crime" messaging comes from the unique context of the 70s and 80s, when crime was much higher than today and continually rising. I'm hopeful that prison reform is a much more politically palatable message now that crime has been trending down for decades.
Crime may be trending down, but I think the perception is that it's more common - I remember reading the results of multiple polls to that effect over the last decade. People consistently believe that crime has gotten worse. Part of there blame was placed on the news media overreporting crime stories (as what else are they going to talk about when nothing exciting is happening?) which skews public perception of the actual scale of the problem.
The polling I'm familiar with (e.g. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1603/crime.aspx) indicates that there's been a significant shift. In particular I'd point at the "too tough, not tough enough or about right" question; in 1992, the idea that we shouldn't be tougher on crime was quite radical and the idea that we're too tough on crime was practically nonexistent.
That particular question has shifted, sure. But in the early 90s, wasn't crime at historic highs in the country? In any case, it has shifted to the point that only twice as many people believe that we should be tougher on crime rather than more lenient. But look at the chart for the question "Is there more crime in the U.S. than there was a year ago, or less?" It shows that "More" dominates "Less" at around 65% - 20%, and has done so since the turn of the millenium. The majority still believe that crime gets worse, year on year.
Thanks for posting in this thread. I've read all of your comments.
If prison is as horrible as you describe, why do you think it's not much of a deterrent?
If prison is as horrible as you describe, why do you think it's not much of a deterrent?
Generally, deterrents such as extremely harsh prison sentences have no evidence that they're actually effective. Many nonviolent crimes such as the kind associated with addiction will occur as a result the illness. Other violent crimes such as murder occur compulsively, and therefore do not respond to rational thinking such as "jail really sucks bro".
Think of it like this though: If harsh, dehumanizing punishments were an effective deterrent, crimes would've gone up when we stopped chopping off people's limbs for stealing, and in fact we'd have more stealing in modern day than at any time in history because public mutilation is not an acceptable punishment now.
Think of it like this though: If harsh, dehumanizing punishments were an effective deterrent, crimes would've gone up when we stopped chopping off people's limbs for stealing, and in fact we'd have more stealing in modern day than at any time in history because public mutilation is not an acceptable punishment now.
Because people who commit crimes tend to think that they won't get caught. For repeat offenders, they either think they won't get caught, or if they do, they "know how to do time."
Granted this was from studies done in the 70s and 80s that I recall from prepping for a debate on the death penalty.
Granted this was from studies done in the 70s and 80s that I recall from prepping for a debate on the death penalty.
So you’re saying prison is simply a deterrent for the unimprisoned? So it’s okay there is rape and murder in there because it makes people stay on the right side of the law on the outside of prisons? Is that what you’re saying or am i misunderstanding?
I think it’s best for a society to implement policies to reduce crime not to scare people into complying with the law. The alternative is quite negative. Also, let’s remind ourselves that people are imprisoned in the US for stupid things like smoking pot, not paying tickets, scared into guilty pleas. Some of those people harden and become career criminals in prison and in the end it results in more crime.
I think it’s best for a society to implement policies to reduce crime not to scare people into complying with the law. The alternative is quite negative. Also, let’s remind ourselves that people are imprisoned in the US for stupid things like smoking pot, not paying tickets, scared into guilty pleas. Some of those people harden and become career criminals in prison and in the end it results in more crime.
Could we just not do things like this. I'm sorry to be singling anyone out but there is a pattern here. People, the "well actually" rebuttals that you pull out of thin air in two minutes are not a useful or meaningful response to someone's reportage of their lives experience and do not facilitate the quality of discussion that brought you to HN in the first place, and if you do not understand that then consider that perhaps a life in which most problems are inherently tractable, if not an easy search result from Stack Overflow, does not actually leave you with a correct understanding of your ability to understand or solve complex problems in the world.
What we call “lived experience” today used to be called, “an anecdote,” and what brought me to places like HN, actually, is that the kind of people who came here understood why we distinguish such statements from data. (There’s a pithy aphorism to this effect, which you may be familiar with.)
The grandparent comment here is very good and I agree with all of it — comparing prison to high school is risible, at best — but that doesn’t mean we should fetishize expression of personal experience above any other kind of comment.
The grandparent comment here is very good and I agree with all of it — comparing prison to high school is risible, at best — but that doesn’t mean we should fetishize expression of personal experience above any other kind of comment.
Look, I like data — meaningful data — just as much as the next person here, but this is a little bit of a strawman argument, isn't it. You're not defending a comment that was based on any data, you're defending the a priori reasoning with which someone decided to rebut someone's reportage of own experience. I do not think you would stand for that for one second if the topic was operating system development or database engineering or anything at all involving experience that you recognized and valued.
Secondly, you're wrong. "Lived experience" is not the same as "an anecdote." An anecdote is a story. Experience is interrogable. The man sharing his experience is right here on HN. The person who wrote was not repeating a story that he had heard, or describing a single isolated incident.
Secondly, you're wrong. "Lived experience" is not the same as "an anecdote." An anecdote is a story. Experience is interrogable. The man sharing his experience is right here on HN. The person who wrote was not repeating a story that he had heard, or describing a single isolated incident.
LOL, no... "lived experience" is exactly the same as "an anecdote". There's literally zero difference. Its a different way of saying, "a story". Anecdotes are interrogable as well. Hell, its in the goddamn definition of the word.
an·ec·dote
/ˈanəkˌdōt/
noun
a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
Your key word in that definition is "real".
an·ec·dote
/ˈanəkˌdōt/
noun
a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
Your key word in that definition is "real".
escape_goat(1)
Could we please not try to prohibit critique and discussion just because someone doesn't agree with it? Open discussion and well founded criticism is what makes me read the comments.
I actually was searching for a response to GP claims about prison not being a deterrent and if nobody had mentioned it would commented it myself.
To add to the arguments: GP even contradicts himself by stating how bad prison is and that you really don't want to be there while claiming it's not a deterrent.
Criticizing that point was absolutely fair and doesn't mean the rest of GP's comment is bad or untrue.
I actually was searching for a response to GP claims about prison not being a deterrent and if nobody had mentioned it would commented it myself.
To add to the arguments: GP even contradicts himself by stating how bad prison is and that you really don't want to be there while claiming it's not a deterrent.
Criticizing that point was absolutely fair and doesn't mean the rest of GP's comment is bad or untrue.
I think he was saying it's not a deterrent from committing more crime, not that it's not a deterrent from going back to prison. Which is to say, it's not deterring what we want it to be deterring.
Even if that part is useful though there's no real reason to impugn the integrity of the people the GP references, and the reply does not tell us why we should find those people more likely to be prone to self-rationalization, which it needs to.
Even if that part is useful though there's no real reason to impugn the integrity of the people the GP references, and the reply does not tell us why we should find those people more likely to be prone to self-rationalization, which it needs to.
In behavioral science it is well documented that punishment is an ineffective driver for behavioral modification. In fact, for punishment to work at all it has to be consistent and immediate. Prison is neither.
So our best theory of behavioral modification states that prisons is not a deterrent for crime, nor is there any evidence for it in the records. All the while prisons are an inhumane and terrible way to treat people. Can we just please abolish prisons.
So our best theory of behavioral modification states that prisons is not a deterrent for crime, nor is there any evidence for it in the records. All the while prisons are an inhumane and terrible way to treat people. Can we just please abolish prisons.
Car thieves don't steal cars while in prison. Bank robbers don't rob banks while in prison. Some crime may continue within the walls of the prison, but the world outside is protected. If a person would commit crimes for 40 years, keeping that person in prison for 20 years is a 50% crime reduction.
There are other ways to confine people then prisons. E.g. you can place people under house arrest, curfew, etc.
Also your logic if flawed. Confining people after the deed seem logically a really poor and inefficient way to reduce crime. While one criminal is confined, there will always be another. So your 50% crime reduction is closer to 0%.
Also your logic if flawed. Confining people after the deed seem logically a really poor and inefficient way to reduce crime. While one criminal is confined, there will always be another. So your 50% crime reduction is closer to 0%.
A contradiction is when two things both can't be true. Not just when things are unlikely to be true.
It would be a contradiction if people only ended up in prison because they wanted to go.
In reality many people commit crimes for other reasons, like lack of food and shelter.
Its much harder to get a job with a criminal record, so many former criminals end up forced back into criminal activities for food and shelter.
It would be a contradiction if people only ended up in prison because they wanted to go.
In reality many people commit crimes for other reasons, like lack of food and shelter.
Its much harder to get a job with a criminal record, so many former criminals end up forced back into criminal activities for food and shelter.
Rather than personal attacks you should take the time to actually respond to their comment if you feel so strongly against it.
Responding to somebody's life experience with "maybe the people you spoke to were lying" is more a statement about what your priors are than a substantive contribution to a conversation.
[deleted]
I took the time to respond to what I felt strongly about, and maybe characterizing criticism as a "personal attack" describes how it makes you feel, but that doesn't mean that it describes what it is.
> if you do not understand that then it is because you live in a very sheltered world
This is the part which is a personal attack. You have some time to edit your comment to restate that, if you're up for it. :)
This is the part which is a personal attack. You have some time to edit your comment to restate that, if you're up for it. :)
Fair enough, I've restated that.
> if you do not understand that then consider that perhaps a life in which most problems are inherently tractable, [...] does not actually leave you with a correct understanding of your ability to understand or solve complex problems in the world.
Ugh. That's not really any better. You're still effectively saying the person is an idiot / incapable of reasonable thinking. :(
Ugh. That's not really any better. You're still effectively saying the person is an idiot / incapable of reasonable thinking. :(
Okay, assuming that you understand my point, how would you restate it in a way that didn't imply that a person who engaged in that sort of response was an idiot or capable of reasonable thought?
I don't actually have a problem with people being wrong or not very bright in the comments they make. I have a problem with the arrogance and self-involvement that I feel responding to someone like this — someone who has literally signed up to HN so that they could share a few paragraphs about their life — represents. So if you can do a better job of making the problem with that clear to people who might otherwise make such a mistake, then that would be even better.
I don't actually have a problem with people being wrong or not very bright in the comments they make. I have a problem with the arrogance and self-involvement that I feel responding to someone like this — someone who has literally signed up to HN so that they could share a few paragraphs about their life — represents. So if you can do a better job of making the problem with that clear to people who might otherwise make such a mistake, then that would be even better.
> someone who has literally signed up to HN so that they could share a few paragraphs about their life
Hmmm, I think we're coming at this from different places.
Personally, I have no problem at all with people coming to HN to share their life experiences. For me, that helps my understanding of the world. :)
Hmmm, I think we're coming at this from different places.
Personally, I have no problem at all with people coming to HN to share their life experiences. For me, that helps my understanding of the world. :)
Right, but what about the people that respond by rejecting those experiences or implying something unsavory about the person sharing them?
Calling somebody sheltered is objectively a personal attack on this forum.
I absolutely intended to tell an entire category of people that they were sheltered. I disagree with you, but it's true that I've certainly seen the term appear within the context of a personal attack in the past, so I agree that if I had found a better way in which to express my anger and disapproval then that would have been preferable.
Why? What purpose does that serve? If he re-butts one there's half a million others ready to take it's place.
This kind of thing only gets solved one way. And it's not pretty.
This kind of thing only gets solved one way. And it's not pretty.
[deleted]
I know a judge who has said the US "corrections" system is not designed to correct criminals and prevent future crimes. It's designed to punish people.
Yeah completely agree that's what it's designed for, but to what end? What goal do we think the punishment achieves?
The only useful thing about it IMO is preventing truly dangerous/sick people from interacting with the rest of society. Most prisoners are not that
The only useful thing about it IMO is preventing truly dangerous/sick people from interacting with the rest of society. Most prisoners are not that
Wikipedia[1] lays out a list of common justifications for imprisonment that feels accurate: rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution. Different societies may prioritize each of those differently.
I don't think it's a stretch to suggest the US has gone long on the "retribution" angle in their approach to criminal justice.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison#Theories_of_punishment_...
I don't think it's a stretch to suggest the US has gone long on the "retribution" angle in their approach to criminal justice.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison#Theories_of_punishment_...
Something got left off the list, unless "retribution" is supposed to cover it. When people see crimes go unpunished, they form lynch mobs. An unsatisfied angry population is a dangerous thing to have.
That's exactly what "retribution" covers, a sense that justice has been done for the victims and the community.
Rehabilitation: should be obvious, nordic countries are well known for prioritizing this.
Deterrence: again obvious, as noted elsewhere imprisonment has been found to be a poor deterrent in studies but the concept remains as a political argument in favor of harsher sentencing.
Incapacitation: keeping the public safe by preventing dangerous individuals from having the ability to endanger others.
and Retribution, which we just discussed above.
Rehabilitation: should be obvious, nordic countries are well known for prioritizing this.
Deterrence: again obvious, as noted elsewhere imprisonment has been found to be a poor deterrent in studies but the concept remains as a political argument in favor of harsher sentencing.
Incapacitation: keeping the public safe by preventing dangerous individuals from having the ability to endanger others.
and Retribution, which we just discussed above.
> Rehabilitation: should be obvious, nordic countries are well known for prioritizing this.
Only on paper (or more accurately as a self delusion). E.g. Iceland still uses excessive solitary confinement, even though it has shown to have negative rehabilitating effects and is under every definition a form of torture. The fact that the Icelandic prison system still engages in torture suggests that they are still in the retribution camp of punishment.
I don’t know about the other Nordic countries but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear similar stories from there.
Only on paper (or more accurately as a self delusion). E.g. Iceland still uses excessive solitary confinement, even though it has shown to have negative rehabilitating effects and is under every definition a form of torture. The fact that the Icelandic prison system still engages in torture suggests that they are still in the retribution camp of punishment.
I don’t know about the other Nordic countries but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear similar stories from there.
I often get the sense that people see retribution as inherently evil, barbaric, and unfit for civilization. That doesn't match up well with the prevention of lynch mobs. It's plainly evil and uncivilized to create conditions conducive to the formation of lynch mobs.
Just to be clear my intended point (and the judges point) was that the justice system is broken, not that punishment is a worthwhile goal.
qwtel(4)
[deleted]
That is blindingly obvious. The US culture has an undercurrent of cruelty against the poor/people of colour. The prison system is a prime example of this.
Agree with everything you say about prison.
I think you are under-estimating the extent that many urban schools are preparing students for prison though, and have some structural features in common, even though of course schools aren't nearly as bad as prisons. Contemporary urban schools are often really terrible places, stockhousing and controlling children, preparing them to be stockhoused and controlled.
I think you are under-estimating the extent that many urban schools are preparing students for prison though, and have some structural features in common, even though of course schools aren't nearly as bad as prisons. Contemporary urban schools are often really terrible places, stockhousing and controlling children, preparing them to be stockhoused and controlled.
But I think those schools are a clear example of why it's a hard problem. Urban schools could be great places if we ended their stockhousing and controlling programs - but any school that did that would see a massive drop in graduation rate, from all the students who don't value education and won't show up unless compelled. If the cost of nice, non-controlling urban schools is a 30% graduation rate, is that a price anyone's willing to pay?
(And that's without touching the problem of actively violent, disruptive students, who would probably need to be expelled far sooner than they are to protect a non-controlling environment.)
(And that's without touching the problem of actively violent, disruptive students, who would probably need to be expelled far sooner than they are to protect a non-controlling environment.)
I've been to both as well and this is a personal anecdote with little generizability. The experience in different US prisons (and jails for that matter) differs widely - just like schools.
Federal prisons are well known to be cake walks. State prisons are the worst but again differ widely - even within the same state. Typically those with different types of crimes and sentences and ages get put in different prisons, so as you can imagine a nonviolent offender under 35 with a 10 year or less sentence gets sent to a much better prison then a serial killer who's 51 with a life sentence.
So take that dude's experience with a grain of salt. The state wants you to believe prison is hell, but as with most things it depends. The positive experiences I had in prison changed my life. If I had a choice between my prison experience and my experience as a master's student all over again I'd choose prison every time a million times over.
Federal prisons are well known to be cake walks. State prisons are the worst but again differ widely - even within the same state. Typically those with different types of crimes and sentences and ages get put in different prisons, so as you can imagine a nonviolent offender under 35 with a 10 year or less sentence gets sent to a much better prison then a serial killer who's 51 with a life sentence.
So take that dude's experience with a grain of salt. The state wants you to believe prison is hell, but as with most things it depends. The positive experiences I had in prison changed my life. If I had a choice between my prison experience and my experience as a master's student all over again I'd choose prison every time a million times over.
The US prison system is purposely designed to be as violent, demeaning, and inhuman as possible. So you can argue that it works perfectly the way it was designed to work. The official theory is that it somehow will reduce crime. That hasn’t happened obviously. And yet the system continues. So obviously the real purpose of the US prison system is not to reduce crime. Other countries has for years shown how to effectively reduce crime without torturing people.
It's important to distinguish between types of "prisons". Jails and more specifically, US county jails, are technically prisons if the sentence is long enough vs a short enough term in a proper prison - https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-the-difference-bet... I believe some of these pictures in the school or prison are county jails, which are not horrific by any means. I could be wrong, of course.
> most popular entertainment on prisons downplays how bad it really gets [..] Why don't we have more outrage against this outdated institution created out of 1600 era values?
You answered your own question.
You answered your own question.
Is it possible to ask for solitary confinement 100% of the time? I feel like I would do okay for at least one year that way. Especially since you do see a human at least once a day.
> The whole thing is an abomination. It serves no useful purpose to society to subject most criminals to prison
The purpose of prison is not reform. It's not even punishment or deterrence. The purpose of prison in the US is:
1) First and foremost it is a profit center. Caging human beings is a multi billion dollar industry in the US.
2) A storage facility for political dissidents and out groups. We just make up laws to target certain groups we don't like, and use that as pretext to lock them away (you know, that pesky first amendment always getting in the way).
3) To reify the carve out in the 13th Amendment which states:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Gotta keep slavery alive and well in the USA.
The purpose of prison is not reform. It's not even punishment or deterrence. The purpose of prison in the US is:
1) First and foremost it is a profit center. Caging human beings is a multi billion dollar industry in the US.
2) A storage facility for political dissidents and out groups. We just make up laws to target certain groups we don't like, and use that as pretext to lock them away (you know, that pesky first amendment always getting in the way).
3) To reify the carve out in the 13th Amendment which states:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Gotta keep slavery alive and well in the USA.
Thank you for your perspective. Hopefully one day we can change this system.
> Why don't we have more outrage against this outdated institution created out of 1600 era values?
Americans with nice lives, particularly the types to frequent HN, are insulated from the effects of our criminal justice system. Concern for schooling takes precedence.
Americans with nice lives, particularly the types to frequent HN, are insulated from the effects of our criminal justice system. Concern for schooling takes precedence.
> Americans with nice lives, particularly the types to frequent HN, are insulated from the effects of our criminal justice system. Concern for schooling takes precedence.
It's called selective application of the Law, and the US has 3 possibly 4 tiered systems depending on Class strata from what I can tell.
The first level applies to the affluent and politically connected classes that get to legalize their crimes and somehow still get rewarded for their behavior with continued contracts with Government.
FAANG workers have to recognize they are part of the problem: they work for employers who actively abuse privacy laws, labour laws, tax laws, and God only knows what other clandestine operations they have with military and intelligence agencies and yet its some sort of talking point that those people are proud to remind you of any chance they have that they belong to this class (of only vicariously) as though it had any merit or prestige. Until that sentiment changes, I doubt any well constructed from of oratory on HN is going to do much if anything to that end, its definitely a cultural and social issue and class and your affiliation to it seems to be a much bigger component than anything like skin colour or living in the right neighborhood, zip codes.
It's called selective application of the Law, and the US has 3 possibly 4 tiered systems depending on Class strata from what I can tell.
The first level applies to the affluent and politically connected classes that get to legalize their crimes and somehow still get rewarded for their behavior with continued contracts with Government.
FAANG workers have to recognize they are part of the problem: they work for employers who actively abuse privacy laws, labour laws, tax laws, and God only knows what other clandestine operations they have with military and intelligence agencies and yet its some sort of talking point that those people are proud to remind you of any chance they have that they belong to this class (of only vicariously) as though it had any merit or prestige. Until that sentiment changes, I doubt any well constructed from of oratory on HN is going to do much if anything to that end, its definitely a cultural and social issue and class and your affiliation to it seems to be a much bigger component than anything like skin colour or living in the right neighborhood, zip codes.
Americans who live in low-crime areas are somewhat insulated from criminal justice "reform" that sets criminals free and increases crime rates.
[This comment previously contained an assumption that reducing poverty reduces crime rates. A poster commented that there isn't as much of a correlation as this comment stated so I removed it.]
Poverty rates fell in the 1960s, but crime rose.
After doing a brief amount of research, you're probably right. Thank you for correcting me.
Leaded gas.
> solitary confinement
If the environment is so violent, why wouldn’t you want solitary confinement? (Is there a downside?)
If the environment is so violent, why wouldn’t you want solitary confinement? (Is there a downside?)
Yes there is a huge downside. Solitary confinement is torture by every definition of the word torture. In fact I think every humanitarian organization has solitary confinement on their list of common torture practices.
Excessive and prolonged solitary confinement will pretty much result in the death of the individual. The psychological damage inflected upon the victim will be so great that they will return another person (and not in the reformed sense).
Humans are social animals, to deprive us of company for a prolonged periods is as dangerous to our health as depriving us of food. We need love to survive just as we need warmth.
Excessive and prolonged solitary confinement will pretty much result in the death of the individual. The psychological damage inflected upon the victim will be so great that they will return another person (and not in the reformed sense).
Humans are social animals, to deprive us of company for a prolonged periods is as dangerous to our health as depriving us of food. We need love to survive just as we need warmth.
I came here to comment similar to what you've already said.
Prison was HELL.
Prison was HELL.
There are schools as bad as prison, read about Elan
[deleted]
thegrimmest(2)
qPM9l3XJrF(1)
>As someone who's been to prison and school, lots of comments here sound pretty tone deaf.
Now why don't people apply this to everything else? You think HN knows what it's like to be a plumber('s apprentice), janitor, drive a floor buffer for min-wage, etc?
Now why don't people apply this to everything else? You think HN knows what it's like to be a plumber('s apprentice), janitor, drive a floor buffer for min-wage, etc?
You think they don't? No working class backgrounds on HN?
I did quite well by measuring "overall area of ground level windows".
It was my criteria as well and the only one that failed me was https://www.holmesmiller.com/project/hmp-grampian
Which looks really nice for a prison. I suspect it is an administrative building, or just the entrance. Not the place where inmates actually live.
Which looks really nice for a prison. I suspect it is an administrative building, or just the entrance. Not the place where inmates actually live.
I have to admit I cheated on that one by recognizing "HRP" as the UK-typical naming scheme for prisons.
It does look really nice. Based on the photos, it does resemble a school, or at the minimum, a library.
It shows no windows at all, beyond the reception area.
The photo in the quizz is cropped. You see less of the wall.
See also "Is the front door designed to let one person through at a time, or many".
School buildings move their entire populations through the entrance in the space of 10 minutes. Prisons are more-or-less entirely designed to prevent exactly that from happening.
School buildings move their entire populations through the entrance in the space of 10 minutes. Prisons are more-or-less entirely designed to prevent exactly that from happening.
Wow, now thinking of it, my high school was awful at that.
At least it had three different exits.
At least it had three different exits.
It is almost enough just to go by number of floors. Two or less? It's a school (except for a couple examples).
In the UK our prisons often look nicer than our (state) schools. Many of our prisons are quite ancient, whereas many of our state schools are 1960s monstrosities.
For example:
* https://hidden-london.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/geograp... vs https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/James_Ho...
* https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1185483.ece/ALT... vs https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Cefn_Sae...
* https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/HM_... vs https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/We...
For example:
* https://hidden-london.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/geograp... vs https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/James_Ho...
* https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1185483.ece/ALT... vs https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Cefn_Sae...
* https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/HM_... vs https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/We...
The outside of prisons look nicer. Visitors entrances often look pretty so non-incarcerated people and local officials are presented with an inoffensive facade that's not dissimilar to a modern business or institutional reception area. Conditions in the rest of the building may be appalling, but generally nobody is allowed to take pictures of that.
Aww, I had grown to like that style of architecture while I was living abroad (in Holland, not England, but there was a lot of similarly built structures out in the suburbs where I lived)
It doesn't age particularly well, though
It doesn't age particularly well, though
I concede that modernist architecture hasn't aged particularly well, but I grew up in a fairly deprived area of the UK (Torbay) and all the schools are in fairly good condition. The worst one I visited was a private one, even.
Point being that you can cherry pick any answer
Point being that you can cherry pick any answer
monstrosties is a strong word, they're cheap and functional (and anything but pretty, everybody agrees). I grew up in these (both kind, classical and industrial actually) and nobody really cared.
[deleted]
I find most building in the UK to be either extremely futuristic (think London modern skyscrapers) and out of space, concrete blobs or houses with brick facades.
That's subjective, but I can't say I like any of them
That's subjective, but I can't say I like any of them
It’s unfair to compare CLASP [1] buildings with centuries old stone buildings... The CLASP system was a stopgap measure for cost-effectively building schools for the baby boomer generation given the economic constraints of post-WW2 Britain.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium_of_Local_Authorit...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium_of_Local_Authorit...
It doesn't look bad because it's cheap, it looks bad because it's inhuman.
There's nothing inhuman about any of the three school pictures here. They're built to a human scale (not too tall, decent amounts of internal room), have generous numbers of windows, and are set in outdoor space with grass and trees.
There are, on the other hand, lots of practical problems with this kind of building. The flat roofs have a tendency to leak, they're decades past their design life, thermal control is poor, they're riddled with asbestos, and a number of other issues. And lots of people think they're ugly. But this doesn't make them inhuman, just a flawed solution to a real-world problem.
I think it's easy to forget just what difficulties the UK was in for building in the 1950s and 1960s. There was a spectacular shortage of housing (a baby boom and the effects of WW2 bombing didn't help) and a chronic shortage of both money and skilled labour for building. There is, bluntly, no way that enough traditional brick and stone buildings could have been put up for there to be enough schools. So you can certainly argue that better cheap and/or mass produced buildings should have been made, or that the aesthetics were bad, but writing off all the architecture without understanding its context is unhelpful.
[Edit: in my view, the most inhuman feature of the images is the fencing, but that is almost certainly not original - security in schools was really stepped up from the 1990s onwards]
There are, on the other hand, lots of practical problems with this kind of building. The flat roofs have a tendency to leak, they're decades past their design life, thermal control is poor, they're riddled with asbestos, and a number of other issues. And lots of people think they're ugly. But this doesn't make them inhuman, just a flawed solution to a real-world problem.
I think it's easy to forget just what difficulties the UK was in for building in the 1950s and 1960s. There was a spectacular shortage of housing (a baby boom and the effects of WW2 bombing didn't help) and a chronic shortage of both money and skilled labour for building. There is, bluntly, no way that enough traditional brick and stone buildings could have been put up for there to be enough schools. So you can certainly argue that better cheap and/or mass produced buildings should have been made, or that the aesthetics were bad, but writing off all the architecture without understanding its context is unhelpful.
[Edit: in my view, the most inhuman feature of the images is the fencing, but that is almost certainly not original - security in schools was really stepped up from the 1990s onwards]
inhuman is a strong word just to talk about schools that were built on the cheap, especially schools that, at the time of constructions, were required because there wasn't enough schools building available.
And given the purpose of a school, building it cheaply is very utilitarian as it allows you to build schools faster. I would rather have the institution be more effective than more pleasing to look at.
Is it surprising that the cellular prison, with its regular chronologies, forced labour, its authorities of surveillance and registration, its experts in normality, who continue and multiply the functions of the judge, should have become the modern instrument of penality? Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?
> prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals
A lot of palaces, museums, galleries, opera houses, universities and houses of government share the same basic layout. You’d be hard pressed to say what the function of the Palace of Westminster was if you didn’t know. It certainly looks a lot like some schools and universities.
A lot of palaces, museums, galleries, opera houses, universities and houses of government share the same basic layout. You’d be hard pressed to say what the function of the Palace of Westminster was if you didn’t know. It certainly looks a lot like some schools and universities.
When you shove 30 kids in a class or 200 students in a university lecture hall, you're going to value conformity and pulsed, factory-like processes.
For the world to be organized any other way you'd need to essentially revise the entire economic system and social contract. If there are billions of people and very unequal resource partitions this will be the inevitable result
1984's From Bauhaus to Our House by Tom Wolfe is a great dive into the 'modern' look. It's not a deep look, but a fun one all the same (it is Tom Wolfe after all).
He traces the design we all see in the downtowns to the works of early german communists and their desire for good looking spaces and architecture that could cheaply be made for the masses in the coming revolution of the working classes. When capitalists heard about it they stopped listening after 'cheap' was uttered. "Oh, this is the 'modern' look and it's the new thing and it's cheap? Do 'em all like that then."
My recollection of Wolfe's short piece is a bit dated, but that's the theme as I remember. It's a short and fun little satirical look at how the 80's downtowns got to be looking as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Bauhaus_to_Our_House
As an aside, I wonder how Minecraft is going to change the look of architects and cities in the future. I'm dead certain that the architects of the 2070s will have gotten their love of design in Minecraft.
He traces the design we all see in the downtowns to the works of early german communists and their desire for good looking spaces and architecture that could cheaply be made for the masses in the coming revolution of the working classes. When capitalists heard about it they stopped listening after 'cheap' was uttered. "Oh, this is the 'modern' look and it's the new thing and it's cheap? Do 'em all like that then."
My recollection of Wolfe's short piece is a bit dated, but that's the theme as I remember. It's a short and fun little satirical look at how the 80's downtowns got to be looking as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Bauhaus_to_Our_House
As an aside, I wonder how Minecraft is going to change the look of architects and cities in the future. I'm dead certain that the architects of the 2070s will have gotten their love of design in Minecraft.
this is because tall, rectangular buildings maximize volume to surface area, whether a hospital school or prison. It is not a form of social control or domination. it is more efficient this way. A one-story hospital would be prohibitively expensive to build in an urban area, and it is not like healthcare is not already too expensive.
High-end office builds are also efficient rectangular prisms far more often than not, yet they don't feel like hospitals, schools or prisons.
I've spent extensive time in all of these except prisons, and I can tell you the difference is stark. What explains that? Is it all just down to expensive trim and interior decor? I'm sure that plays a part, but that was never my main impression. Instead, it comes down to the layout and light and feel: it's clear when a building, however regular and rectangular, is designed to support and empower the occupants and when it's designed to control and direct.
I've spent extensive time in all of these except prisons, and I can tell you the difference is stark. What explains that? Is it all just down to expensive trim and interior decor? I'm sure that plays a part, but that was never my main impression. Instead, it comes down to the layout and light and feel: it's clear when a building, however regular and rectangular, is designed to support and empower the occupants and when it's designed to control and direct.
High-end office buildings cost massively more to build. Also plenty of them put employees in a very aesthetically pleasing well-lit panopticon with open-plan seating. I much prefer my dingy fluorescent-lit office that has a door that closes. (And I turn of the fluorescent lights in favor of my own small lamp.)
Floor fitout is typically left to the tenant, not the landlord. Building skyscrapers with empty floors gives flexibility to future tenants, increasing the rental/purchase value.
Tall office buildings may often have open plan, but this should be attributed to the fitout builder’s client (e.g. SomeCrazySoftwateCompany as the incoming tenant), not the building builder’s client (e.g. SomeGroupInvestmentCompany the owner of the building)
Tall office buildings may often have open plan, but this should be attributed to the fitout builder’s client (e.g. SomeCrazySoftwateCompany as the incoming tenant), not the building builder’s client (e.g. SomeGroupInvestmentCompany the owner of the building)
If you takeout the actual tenant configurations of offices, the idea of "High-End office buildings" becomes pretty irrelevant in this conversation & context of the comment I replied to. Because at that point you're basically just talking about the lobby & the elevators, and the view out the windows.
But they would fit right into these pictures. Not super expensive design offices, but normal administrative building looks roughly the same.
Nope. Its windows. Prisons in most cases are buildings without windows or very small ones. Offices and schools pretty much always have windows.
Foucault is explicitly referring to norms of behavior, not the shapes of buildings:
- regular chronologies
- forced labour
- authorities of surveillance and registrationAre you sure? I've seen some pretty panoptic school designs, and this IS indeed a shape of building that Foucault focused on...
Here's the chapter of his book about the nature of certain building styles and shapes being important here...
https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.disciplineAndPunish...
Also interesting to talk about, are the ways that the people influenced by Foucault talk about space, area, and architectural design. Deleuze and Guattari had a whole lot to say about all of those topics, and they are one of the principle reasons for Foucaults fame...
Here's the chapter of his book about the nature of certain building styles and shapes being important here...
https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.disciplineAndPunish...
Also interesting to talk about, are the ways that the people influenced by Foucault talk about space, area, and architectural design. Deleuze and Guattari had a whole lot to say about all of those topics, and they are one of the principle reasons for Foucaults fame...
I believe it's that they're linked and both arrive out of the same logics of dominion, and authorizing use of dominion over a spaces and people.
Form follows function, I agree.
Outside of "forced labor", just about any large building is going to have people & operations that occur on fixed schedules and have some degree of security.
And now you understand Foucault.
Maybe not: If he considered those sorts of structures (absent the forced labor) to be inherently bad in some way then I do not understand that point of view.
Where is the forced labor in schools, barracks, hospitals and factories? I understand there are some instances where this might be the case, but generally people go to those places because they want to, or because it offers them a favorable outcome that they're willing to temporarily trade some autonomy for.
You can deconstruct the whole of society and make an argument that all labor exchanged for capital is oppression, that all regular chronologies favored by the dominant culture is oppression, that all authority figures are oppressive etc... But it's difficult to imagine a thriving, post-industrial society not featuring some of those things.
Even looking back in history, people have self-organized into hierarchical, regimented systems. I think a lot of this is just a natural reaction to our environment, which is also dictated by regular chronologies (days, lunar cycle, seasons), necessary labor (biological need for food and shelter) and implicit authority figures (parents).
You can deconstruct the whole of society and make an argument that all labor exchanged for capital is oppression, that all regular chronologies favored by the dominant culture is oppression, that all authority figures are oppressive etc... But it's difficult to imagine a thriving, post-industrial society not featuring some of those things.
Even looking back in history, people have self-organized into hierarchical, regimented systems. I think a lot of this is just a natural reaction to our environment, which is also dictated by regular chronologies (days, lunar cycle, seasons), necessary labor (biological need for food and shelter) and implicit authority figures (parents).
>but generally people go to those places because they want to, or because it offers them a favorable outcome that they're willing to temporarily trade some autonomy for.
I don't think this is why kids go to school. You go to school because you have to. There is no realistic option not to go. If you don't go, then you'll be forcefully put into a school for troubled kids. Even if you don't consider the above, there is still an enormous social pressure to go to school too.
I don't think this is why kids go to school. You go to school because you have to. There is no realistic option not to go. If you don't go, then you'll be forcefully put into a school for troubled kids. Even if you don't consider the above, there is still an enormous social pressure to go to school too.
I wish there were solid alternatives to school.
I hate the current system but I also want my kids to be socialised and have friends.
I'd definitely pay a private company providing "home schooling" and using a different model of education where kids are learning by doing instead of memorising crap and at the same time can share a location with other kids of the same age (+ a few tutor available to unblock kids when needed but not delivering frontal lessons).
I hate the current system but I also want my kids to be socialised and have friends.
I'd definitely pay a private company providing "home schooling" and using a different model of education where kids are learning by doing instead of memorising crap and at the same time can share a location with other kids of the same age (+ a few tutor available to unblock kids when needed but not delivering frontal lessons).
Isn’t that basically a Montessori school?
"The Montessori method of education is an educational method developed by Italian physician Maria Montessori. Emphasizing independence, it views children as naturally eager for knowledge and capable of initiating learning in a sufficiently supportive and well-prepared learning environment. It discourages some conventional measures of achievement, such as grades and tests."
"The Montessori method of education is an educational method developed by Italian physician Maria Montessori. Emphasizing independence, it views children as naturally eager for knowledge and capable of initiating learning in a sufficiently supportive and well-prepared learning environment. It discourages some conventional measures of achievement, such as grades and tests."
You might take a look at the "unschooling" movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling
I don't have any first-hand knowledge of how such initiatives work in practice; but at a high level, it's like home-schooling with more community involvement and socialization, as well as off-site learning experiences. I've also heard of some families who do half-and-half between a formal school environment, and unschooling/homeschooling.
I don't have any first-hand knowledge of how such initiatives work in practice; but at a high level, it's like home-schooling with more community involvement and socialization, as well as off-site learning experiences. I've also heard of some families who do half-and-half between a formal school environment, and unschooling/homeschooling.
when i am sick at work, then i can take a few days off. (with or without pay). whatever work needs to get done, will be done by someone else, and i join back in without penalty when i am ready
when my kids miss school, they have to catch up the work they missed. if they already struggle then they can't afford to get sick because they will fall to far behind and may not be able to catch up.
so yes, school is forced labor and it's a prison
when my kids miss school, they have to catch up the work they missed. if they already struggle then they can't afford to get sick because they will fall to far behind and may not be able to catch up.
so yes, school is forced labor and it's a prison
Ex-primary teacher here. At any one time a certain percentage of kids in the class would be off sick, it was a given. So the curriculum doesn't proceed linearly but more like a helix: it circles around and around the same topics year by year with each child being supported to learn at the level they are - always a broad range in any one class.
So it's in my experience totally untrue to suggest that any child would have to "catch up" any learning missed due to sickness (and also reveals that schools are talking bollocks when they suggest that taking a few days off to go on holiday during termtime will have any noticeable adverse effect, but shhhh)
So it's in my experience totally untrue to suggest that any child would have to "catch up" any learning missed due to sickness (and also reveals that schools are talking bollocks when they suggest that taking a few days off to go on holiday during termtime will have any noticeable adverse effect, but shhhh)
Yah, catch-up work often feels punitive but it appears to be universally expected by instructors. I'm a MS teacher, and I don't really care (though it does complicate my assessments), but my kids' teachers do really care about every piece of work being turned in.
Sometimes it's ridiculous-- my then-4th grader was taking Algebra I on the side, and had shown mastery on the 4th grade fraction curriculum on a test, but getting the large packet of fraction work that he missed during an absence was considered critically important. :P
> reveals that schools are talking bollocks when they suggest that taking a few days off to go on holiday during termtime
I do think that the kind of attitude that lets you ignore a bit of schooling here and there for a convenient vacation schedule does affect outcomes, though. I teach at a private school, but I think we're both aware of incentives for attendance, the reasons for them, and the areas in which they cause perverse outcomes.
Sometimes it's ridiculous-- my then-4th grader was taking Algebra I on the side, and had shown mastery on the 4th grade fraction curriculum on a test, but getting the large packet of fraction work that he missed during an absence was considered critically important. :P
> reveals that schools are talking bollocks when they suggest that taking a few days off to go on holiday during termtime
I do think that the kind of attitude that lets you ignore a bit of schooling here and there for a convenient vacation schedule does affect outcomes, though. I teach at a private school, but I think we're both aware of incentives for attendance, the reasons for them, and the areas in which they cause perverse outcomes.
> So it's in my experience totally untrue to suggest that any child would have to "catch up" any learning missed due to sickness (and also reveals that schools are talking bollocks when they suggest that taking a few days off to go on holiday during termtime will have any noticeable adverse effect, but shhhh)
But it does seem true, from the point of view of parents and children. It doesn't matter that the curriculum is helical and revisits the same topics multiple times. It doesn't revisit the same topics multiple time in a single semester, which means the kid doesn't get a second chance to learn a topic within the grading scope, which means they have to catch up or risk a lower grade. As much as we say that it's the education that matters, as much as it should matter - it doesn't. What matters are the grades. At the very least, in my experience, most parents have grade expectations, and the kid will suffer negative consequences this semester if they fall back, even though they may recover by the end of the education level (where again, the final grades are all that matters).
(Even though the immediate pressure may come from the parents, it's in a control loop with the grades, so the school can't pretend this is not happening.)
But it does seem true, from the point of view of parents and children. It doesn't matter that the curriculum is helical and revisits the same topics multiple times. It doesn't revisit the same topics multiple time in a single semester, which means the kid doesn't get a second chance to learn a topic within the grading scope, which means they have to catch up or risk a lower grade. As much as we say that it's the education that matters, as much as it should matter - it doesn't. What matters are the grades. At the very least, in my experience, most parents have grade expectations, and the kid will suffer negative consequences this semester if they fall back, even though they may recover by the end of the education level (where again, the final grades are all that matters).
(Even though the immediate pressure may come from the parents, it's in a control loop with the grades, so the school can't pretend this is not happening.)
Of course grades are fairly meaningless in elementary school, unless they are so bad you're needing to repeat a year. Being sick for a few days won't cause that. At that level grades are mostly just feedback to the parents.
As a parent, if my 4th or 6th grader got a lower grade due to missing homework as a result of being sick, it wouldn't concern me.
In high school it starts to matter more due to grades being a component of college admissions, but unless you're targeting really elite schools a couple of days of missed work isn't going to move the needle much. And if you are targeting elite schools, you're already working very hard and including a lot of AP courses and extracuricular activities and you will just buckle down and make up the work.
As a parent, if my 4th or 6th grader got a lower grade due to missing homework as a result of being sick, it wouldn't concern me.
In high school it starts to matter more due to grades being a component of college admissions, but unless you're targeting really elite schools a couple of days of missed work isn't going to move the needle much. And if you are targeting elite schools, you're already working very hard and including a lot of AP courses and extracuricular activities and you will just buckle down and make up the work.
That doesn't make it a prison: neither another student nor the teacher can step in and learn the material for your child. I don't know what you think would be an appropriate option there.
Also, you may have a job where none of your responsibilities are unique to you, but that's not often the case outside of some types of shift work. If I take a vacation or sick days, I have catching up to do. No one is going to step in for a couple of days and pickup where I left off on a project I've been working on for 3 months.
As for missing school, my kids go to typical mediocre public schools. When a student is struggling, they're given a little extra help. When they miss because they're sick, they're given plenty of time to makeup the work. And if a student is struggling so much that they can't reasonably move on to the next year's more complex material, the school literally devotes and extra year if resources to
Also, you may have a job where none of your responsibilities are unique to you, but that's not often the case outside of some types of shift work. If I take a vacation or sick days, I have catching up to do. No one is going to step in for a couple of days and pickup where I left off on a project I've been working on for 3 months.
As for missing school, my kids go to typical mediocre public schools. When a student is struggling, they're given a little extra help. When they miss because they're sick, they're given plenty of time to makeup the work. And if a student is struggling so much that they can't reasonably move on to the next year's more complex material, the school literally devotes and extra year if resources to
Also, you may have a job where none of your responsibilities are unique to you, but that's not often the case outside of some types of shift work.
in that environment how do you take a vacation? sure a planned downtime is easier than an unplanned one but the process is the same.
in a programming team other team members pick up tasks.
if my assistant is away, i may have to do some things myself.
if i am sick, my customers will just have to wait. if i set my deadlines to short, not giving any buffer time, it's my fault.
yes, there may be catch up type work, but usually i am not compelled to work overtime, which is how kids catch up time looks like.
they are forced to catch up on their own time, not in class and they are not given a choice.
in that environment how do you take a vacation? sure a planned downtime is easier than an unplanned one but the process is the same.
in a programming team other team members pick up tasks.
if my assistant is away, i may have to do some things myself.
if i am sick, my customers will just have to wait. if i set my deadlines to short, not giving any buffer time, it's my fault.
yes, there may be catch up type work, but usually i am not compelled to work overtime, which is how kids catch up time looks like.
they are forced to catch up on their own time, not in class and they are not given a choice.
montessori designed a way of teaching, where each child learns at their own pace. missed time simply never causes a problem that way
That doesn't mean a student doesn't miss something when they're away from school. Self-paced just changes the timing. The dynamic is not comparable to a work environment where someone else might be able to do the work for you. No one can learn for your child when they are away, and that fact doesn't change with less rigidly structured Montessori schools.
it definetly does mean that they don't miss anything, because the students just resume where they left off without any pressure to speed up.
They still need to actually learn the stuff. That's my point based on your original comment: You're comment was comparing work to school, and that normal schools were bad in some way because at work you could miss time and someone else would step in. I said, repeated, and will say again: learning does not work that way. No one can step in for you. Montessori doesn't change that. It changes the timing and, sure, the direct pressure from the teacher. That doesn't mean there isn't some type of pressure: from the parent, from the other students that are obliged to help in their co-operative learning structure, etc.
I'm not debating the merits of Montessori schools. I'm saying the "missing time" aspect of your comment does not have a good analog from work to learning. That's all.
I'm not debating the merits of Montessori schools. I'm saying the "missing time" aspect of your comment does not have a good analog from work to learning. That's all.
i am not concerned about who is doing the work, but when it needs to be done.
missing time means, that you need to work overtime to make up for it.
at work this is not normally the case. if the work can't be done by someone else, then it will simply be delayed. the timing changes. same with montessori learning. you will simply delay all your learning by a few days. which is not a problem at all because everyone is learning at their own pace anyways.
contrast that with traditional schooling where overtime is the only way to catch up with your classmates
missing time means, that you need to work overtime to make up for it.
at work this is not normally the case. if the work can't be done by someone else, then it will simply be delayed. the timing changes. same with montessori learning. you will simply delay all your learning by a few days. which is not a problem at all because everyone is learning at their own pace anyways.
contrast that with traditional schooling where overtime is the only way to catch up with your classmates
When i am sick my work piles up.
Kids can actually take free days off. They don't actually have to do everything that was done while they have been away, usually we have done just small portion of it. Kids that struggle just continues struggling and kids that perceive school easy just continue lazying around.
In no way will few days off make you fall behind.
Kids can actually take free days off. They don't actually have to do everything that was done while they have been away, usually we have done just small portion of it. Kids that struggle just continues struggling and kids that perceive school easy just continue lazying around.
In no way will few days off make you fall behind.
d/
Sure, there's no inevitability, but there can also be ways that make sense.
It might be possible to make a space launch vehicle that's short and squat, or operate a factory without any regular worker hours, but it's going to have some costs compared to our current equilibrium
It might be possible to make a space launch vehicle that's short and squat, or operate a factory without any regular worker hours, but it's going to have some costs compared to our current equilibrium
The definition itself of cost and equilibrium is ideologically defined, but otherwise your point is correct.
This is certainly a sound explanation – but is it a good one? If we optimize school buildings and prison buildings in a way that they end up being indistinguishable from one another, maybe we should reconsider the metrics we are optimizing for.
I'm not sure I get what's the problem with schools and prisons looking the same. Prisons should look like the rest of the world after all, they're supposed to be places where you learn to function in society.
Fair enough. If our prisons end up looking open, warm and inviting, then that would be a very positive outcome indeed.
That's not my takeaway, after looking at these photos though.
That's not my takeaway, after looking at these photos though.
To me, they looked like buildings. Neither looked horrifying, they were just normal buildings. You would have to make prison intentionally bad looking from outside to make some effect. And i wild still strongly preferred to go to school rather then prison.
Prisons have to be resistant to the attempts of their occupants to escape, or to cause damage or destruction. This doesn't really seem compatible with warm and inviting.
Most prisoners don't want to escape, or cause harm, they just want to finish the term and go home and move on. I'd say you could have the honor system (unlocked doors) for 95 percent of prisoners, by letting them know if they escape they'll go to a more secure and less free prison. Then you make prison a place to learn new skills and get treatment for addictions and therapy, and you'll actually see some improvement in society. Also, send less people to prison.
We already have prisons like that for low-risk, nonviolent offenders. They are called minimum security or "country club" prisons. We also have home detention.
In America that's so rare it's nonexistent. A few rich white collar criminals might get home detention, but for most people who have the option, it's too expensive, with fees of hundreds of dollars a month or more. Country club prisons aren't a real thing, that's just talking points for the "tough on crime" politicians who want to make prison sound fun.
They can be. If you're curious, check out "worlds toughest prisons" on Netflix, an episode that shows a Norwegian rehabilitation-focused prison. You can see how the place is both secure and warm.
I've seen pictures of Norwegian prisons. They certainly look comfortable, but I wouldn't describe them as "open, warm, and inviting". They look halfway between a no-frills dorm and the psychiatric ward I stayed in for a while as a teenager. Certainly far more humane than American prisons, but still clearly _institutional_.
Once again, the adage "don't let perfection be the enemy of good" applies.
You are completely missing the point. Try https://www.schoolprison.com/ and you'll see how the esthetic of building can change dramatically while keeping the same requirements of efficiency, cost and safety.
Look at brutalist building as another example.
Look at brutalist building as another example.
> tall, rectangular buildings maximize volume to surface area,
I imagine that you mean that tall buildings maximize ground area, and that most property is rectangular.
The way to maximize volume to surface area is to build spheres, or cubes if you're forced to remain rectilinear, but tall buildings optimize for ground area.
I imagine that you mean that tall buildings maximize ground area, and that most property is rectangular.
The way to maximize volume to surface area is to build spheres, or cubes if you're forced to remain rectilinear, but tall buildings optimize for ground area.
Surface area in this case refers to surface area of the earth, while volume refers to volume of the structures placed on the earth.
OP is entirely correct, and no one misunderstood the point OP was making. You are simultaneously being needlessly pedantic, and less than charitable by needlessly interpreting inconsequential ambiguities in OPs sentence in a way that would have made them incorrect.
Someone else commented on the downvotes on your post being wrong, the above is why I downvoted you.
OP is entirely correct, and no one misunderstood the point OP was making. You are simultaneously being needlessly pedantic, and less than charitable by needlessly interpreting inconsequential ambiguities in OPs sentence in a way that would have made them incorrect.
Someone else commented on the downvotes on your post being wrong, the above is why I downvoted you.
I misunderstood the point OP was making. But even interpreting "surface area" to mean "ground area", it's only right in dense areas without open land. The reason schools are built the way they are is to optimize for cost.
Some of that's land, but some is also the design and construction. You're probably hiring a design firm that specializes in building efficient brick box schools and similar institutional projects, maybe with a big glass atrium to have one showcase area, and they've got that design patten pretty well nailed down.
When you have space, you get sprawling flat schools. Still probably a brick box, but not a tall one. My school had large portions that were only one floor tall, and one area that stacked two floors. They've since knocked it down and replaced it with a 3-story building, because now they need more capacity and no longer had space to keep tacking additions on.
Would it have used a smaller footprint to stack it taller to begin with? Sure, but the building lot wasn't the liming factor, budget was.
Some of that's land, but some is also the design and construction. You're probably hiring a design firm that specializes in building efficient brick box schools and similar institutional projects, maybe with a big glass atrium to have one showcase area, and they've got that design patten pretty well nailed down.
When you have space, you get sprawling flat schools. Still probably a brick box, but not a tall one. My school had large portions that were only one floor tall, and one area that stacked two floors. They've since knocked it down and replaced it with a 3-story building, because now they need more capacity and no longer had space to keep tacking additions on.
Would it have used a smaller footprint to stack it taller to begin with? Sure, but the building lot wasn't the liming factor, budget was.
> You are simultaneously being needlessly pedantic, and less than charitable by needlessly interpreting inconsequential ambiguities in OPs sentence in a way that would have made them incorrect.
Dial it back.
When I hear "most volume per surface area" I think of dome architecture, and anyone with even a slight interest in geometry or architecture would probably think similarly.
I wasn't being rude, I was helping explain their point because the words they used didn't match the ideas they meant to convey.
Dial it back.
When I hear "most volume per surface area" I think of dome architecture, and anyone with even a slight interest in geometry or architecture would probably think similarly.
I wasn't being rude, I was helping explain their point because the words they used didn't match the ideas they meant to convey.
You shouldn't be downvoted, this is correct
> It is not a form of social control or domination. it is more efficient this way.
efficiency doesn't stop with a building's dimensions. efficiency demands social control. it doesn't care whether that happens through self-control and self-discipline or through domination.
efficiency doesn't stop with a building's dimensions. efficiency demands social control. it doesn't care whether that happens through self-control and self-discipline or through domination.
I've noticed authoritarians tend to care about maximizing volume to surface area over aesthetics, so I don't think those things are entirely unrelated.
I think the excerpt more about the artificial regimentation and the arbitrary authority than the shape of the building.
This is one of the most delightfully overblown quotes of all time. But Herbert Marcuse went one better: he compared amusement parks to concentration camps.
I still have actual regular nightmares from my school-years, even though I've just reached 40 years of age. They started when I was 20-something, and they will probably never go away. What is more interesting is that during my school years I never looked at school as an institution as being repressive or "prison-like", looks like my unconscious/subconscious/whatever there is there inside was very good at repressing that obvious fact.
I hated school too. But what caused your nightmares? For me, it was my peers, not oppressive teachers. Most modern high school movies seem to suggest the same thing. So perhaps we should fix the quote. Schools are like prisons - where the prisoners have taken over the institution.
I don't think Marcuse should be taken lightly on this point. As a Jew during the second world war and an immigrant to the US, he worked with Adorno and others who regularly (and correctly, in my opinion) viewed the Holocaust as humanity's greatest horror and a turning point of modernity.
Marcuse wasn't a Jew, actually. But yeah, I don't really find the analysis convincing. I mean... amusement parks have towers, and queues, and walls round the outside, like concentration camps? And they're... organized and administered? Somehow this isn't quite getting past the laugh test. (Isaiah Berlin was absolutely outraged by the Marcuse quote, incidentally.)
Update: Marcuse was a Jew, actually. My bad. I'd misremembered this from Martin Jay's book.
Update: Marcuse was a Jew, actually. My bad. I'd misremembered this from Martin Jay's book.
It's funny how people complain about "motivated reasoning" and demand an immense amount of rigour when someone says something they disagree with (say, whichever side people take on the "Google's ideological echo chamber" argument); but are very willing to buy very reductionist and broad statements when their gut tells them it's just right.
I suppose maybe there is some truth to it. But he's highly disingenuous with his implications. It's like a Twitter hot-take that's expanded into a book. Hard libertarians might argue that taxation is in some way equivalent to slavery, which is also technically true but a very biased presentation of the facts. Schools and hospitals are similar to prisons in the same way taxation is similar to slavery (you can find similarities, but ignoring the differences is just asinine).
Every right requires responsibilities. If students have a right to learn, then schools have a responsibility to teach them. If young adults have a right to be educated in a broad range of topics (many of which did not interest them as children) then children have a responsibility to learn. Control is all about forcing people to take responsibility, because otherwise rights will be unfulfilled.
The question isn't whether control exists (it can and should) but whether the intent and implementation is just and efficient. A communist dictator can claim the right to a huge portion of the country's wealth while its population starves, this would be unjust.
There are valid questions to ask about control. Is it better to control inputs or outputs? Is it better to have a rule of laws and systems, or a rule of individuals with authority - discretion means giving more power to individuals. Are the trade-offs our society makes currently fair and worthwhile? If a punishment keeps the majority of the population responsible (thus giving creating rights) but hurts the occasional person who is somehow resistant to control is it a bad thing? But simply assuming that control is bad is silly.
I suppose maybe there is some truth to it. But he's highly disingenuous with his implications. It's like a Twitter hot-take that's expanded into a book. Hard libertarians might argue that taxation is in some way equivalent to slavery, which is also technically true but a very biased presentation of the facts. Schools and hospitals are similar to prisons in the same way taxation is similar to slavery (you can find similarities, but ignoring the differences is just asinine).
Every right requires responsibilities. If students have a right to learn, then schools have a responsibility to teach them. If young adults have a right to be educated in a broad range of topics (many of which did not interest them as children) then children have a responsibility to learn. Control is all about forcing people to take responsibility, because otherwise rights will be unfulfilled.
The question isn't whether control exists (it can and should) but whether the intent and implementation is just and efficient. A communist dictator can claim the right to a huge portion of the country's wealth while its population starves, this would be unjust.
There are valid questions to ask about control. Is it better to control inputs or outputs? Is it better to have a rule of laws and systems, or a rule of individuals with authority - discretion means giving more power to individuals. Are the trade-offs our society makes currently fair and worthwhile? If a punishment keeps the majority of the population responsible (thus giving creating rights) but hurts the occasional person who is somehow resistant to control is it a bad thing? But simply assuming that control is bad is silly.
I think the point isn't that the point of school isn't to learn, as you assume. It's main point is to control, learning is secondary.
Foucault advocated for pedophilia, and that knowledge has tainted him for me. Can he still be a moral authority?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_...
More or less the entire French Intellectual establishment argued at that time for "the decriminalization of all consensual relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen".
While I agree that seems extremely stupid, it is based on a morally tenable argument that people under that age could give consent. That may be incorrect but if accepted as a premise would justify their position.
So if Foucault believed this and his moral arguments derived from that, it would seem unwise to dismiss all his moral authority just because you believe he was wrong on this point.
I personally think he is totally wrong and that even people at the age of eighteen struggle to know their own minds clearly with regard to consent. However I do not as a result think Foucault is impossible to take a moral lead from.
More or less the entire French Intellectual establishment argued at that time for "the decriminalization of all consensual relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen".
While I agree that seems extremely stupid, it is based on a morally tenable argument that people under that age could give consent. That may be incorrect but if accepted as a premise would justify their position.
So if Foucault believed this and his moral arguments derived from that, it would seem unwise to dismiss all his moral authority just because you believe he was wrong on this point.
I personally think he is totally wrong and that even people at the age of eighteen struggle to know their own minds clearly with regard to consent. However I do not as a result think Foucault is impossible to take a moral lead from.
> More or less the entire French Intellectual establishment argued at that time
Then the question is, how does one become intellectual establishement. Sounds like dissenters were somehow excluded from that nebulous subjective category.
Then the question is, how does one become intellectual establishement. Sounds like dissenters were somehow excluded from that nebulous subjective category.
Well I just meant that the roll call of names that signed the petition is fairly extraordinary:
Louis Aragon, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Roland Barthes, Simone de Beauvoir, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Michel Leiris, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Philippe Sollers, Jacques Rancière, Jean-François Lyotard, Francis Ponge, Bernard Besret
Louis Aragon, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Roland Barthes, Simone de Beauvoir, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Michel Leiris, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Philippe Sollers, Jacques Rancière, Jean-François Lyotard, Francis Ponge, Bernard Besret
That was indeed what I was referring to. Rather than interpreting your first paragraph as a pardon of Foucault, I consider it a condemnation of the group entire.
If your (or their, the french intellectual elite's/literati's) philosophy is so morally vacuous that it fails to recognize the sexual exploitation of children and young teenagers as reprehensible, then it is worth less than nothing. It is an evil.
Consent is not enough, is the common modern view. Power structures and actual power matters too.
In some sense, surely advocating (almost successfully, if I recall correctly) for a repeal of age of consent laws must be worse than the crime itself. That is, if we are of the opinion that pedophilia is wrong. Consider the difference between orchestrating many murders and a single murder as an analogy.
No, Foucault (and the others on that list) have been let off the hook for too long. The aesthetician in me is horrified, youth is beauty and they want it defiled?
And a disclaimer; I am of course a conservative in every sense of the word, and this is my perspective.
If your (or their, the french intellectual elite's/literati's) philosophy is so morally vacuous that it fails to recognize the sexual exploitation of children and young teenagers as reprehensible, then it is worth less than nothing. It is an evil.
Consent is not enough, is the common modern view. Power structures and actual power matters too.
In some sense, surely advocating (almost successfully, if I recall correctly) for a repeal of age of consent laws must be worse than the crime itself. That is, if we are of the opinion that pedophilia is wrong. Consider the difference between orchestrating many murders and a single murder as an analogy.
No, Foucault (and the others on that list) have been let off the hook for too long. The aesthetician in me is horrified, youth is beauty and they want it defiled?
And a disclaimer; I am of course a conservative in every sense of the word, and this is my perspective.
> Power structures and actual power matters too
Talking about power structures while criticizing Foucault is pretty rich.
Talking about power structures while criticizing Foucault is pretty rich.
I don't think so. A philosophy should be self-consistent, so if I can use Foucaults own words to critique his position on pedophilia, all the better.
seeing how the sex offender registry in the us has created a legal sub-caste with no functional distinction between violent rapists and a 19 year old who sexted their 17 year old gf, while doing seemingly nothing to curb the actual abuse and trafficking of minors, it is hard to say the carceral approach has really been more effective or beneficial than what foucault advocated.
I suggest you read the interview he gave on the topic. Besides that, I'm not sure what makes you think Foucault is trying to be a moral authority in the first place. He was demeaned for most of his life on the basis of the moral prohibition on homosexuality. Why would he be sympathetic to moral systems?
Not all criticism is moral criticism.
Not all criticism is moral criticism.
Well, certainly this case in particular is one of morals in so far as I understand the concept of morality. To me, sexual relations with children is immoral, it is not proper behaviour in which an adult should partake.
Foucault seemed to think it was, if not proper behaviour, then at least not-unproper. That is a moral judgement.
To suggest that Foucault was above the entire concept of morals as I understand you to do, well I can't agree on that and I don't think he would either. Of course he was trying to be a moral authority, remember that this whole thing was about him (and others) attempting to legalize sexual relations with children. If he did not think himself an authority, on what merit would he petition? And barring that, it is clear that he was and maybe is an authority, because here we are half a century later or so still discussing his position.
His experiences does not excuse him in my eyes. Neither does it impact to the slightest degree the truth-value of his position on this issue, nor of his philosophy overall.
Foucault seemed to think it was, if not proper behaviour, then at least not-unproper. That is a moral judgement.
To suggest that Foucault was above the entire concept of morals as I understand you to do, well I can't agree on that and I don't think he would either. Of course he was trying to be a moral authority, remember that this whole thing was about him (and others) attempting to legalize sexual relations with children. If he did not think himself an authority, on what merit would he petition? And barring that, it is clear that he was and maybe is an authority, because here we are half a century later or so still discussing his position.
His experiences does not excuse him in my eyes. Neither does it impact to the slightest degree the truth-value of his position on this issue, nor of his philosophy overall.
>To me, sexual relations with children is immoral, it is not proper behaviour in which an adult should partake.
It may be a moral issue, but there are pragmatic or non-moral reasons one may argue as Foucault did. You may find those reasons detestable and disgusting. That doesn't mean he was making any appeal to moral sentiment - he was just acting on what he finds beneficial or detrimental. Whether on behalf of sympathy for prisoners against the carceral state, or another reason.
>If he did not think himself an authority, on what merit would he petition?
He can do so not speaking on moral authority, but on a variety of authorities - the authority of a public intellectual, for instance. I don't think he was being a moral leader, or attempting to be. The people who would listen to him, the public at large, would not do so because of his moral position in their eyes. An authority as an enduring public intellectual with a strong grasp on philosophy and sociology within his tradition, for sure. A moral authority? Nobody has ever quoted Foucault in such a way.
His experiences would not excuse him (in your view; in mine, there is little to need an excuse if you examine his intentions), but they would provide a rational explanation for why he would forgo morality to expound his own opinions in pragmatic or non-moral reasons. He may have just not cared about morality (the same system that troubled him, I don't know) and reasoned on his feelings and pragmatism alone. I'm not trying to excuse him, I'm trying to explain him, though I'm really just speculating.
It may be a moral issue, but there are pragmatic or non-moral reasons one may argue as Foucault did. You may find those reasons detestable and disgusting. That doesn't mean he was making any appeal to moral sentiment - he was just acting on what he finds beneficial or detrimental. Whether on behalf of sympathy for prisoners against the carceral state, or another reason.
>If he did not think himself an authority, on what merit would he petition?
He can do so not speaking on moral authority, but on a variety of authorities - the authority of a public intellectual, for instance. I don't think he was being a moral leader, or attempting to be. The people who would listen to him, the public at large, would not do so because of his moral position in their eyes. An authority as an enduring public intellectual with a strong grasp on philosophy and sociology within his tradition, for sure. A moral authority? Nobody has ever quoted Foucault in such a way.
His experiences would not excuse him (in your view; in mine, there is little to need an excuse if you examine his intentions), but they would provide a rational explanation for why he would forgo morality to expound his own opinions in pragmatic or non-moral reasons. He may have just not cared about morality (the same system that troubled him, I don't know) and reasoned on his feelings and pragmatism alone. I'm not trying to excuse him, I'm trying to explain him, though I'm really just speculating.
1960's-1970s celebrity culture was full of young groupies sleeping with older men. Bowie, Jagger, Ozzy, etc were all doing it, and often brazen about it, so its not overly surprising that European intellectuals just wanted it formalized as they were doing it too. They felt it harmless enough for their own selfish reasons and wrapped it up into a 'autonomy of self' argument that, of course, was very self-serving. I think this is good evidence that when you stray outside of your specialty (adult ethics) then you can make some obvious mistakes in other specialized fields (children's sexuality). It probably doesn't help that you have both a strong anti-authoritarian movement and sexual revolution movement happening at the same time, which only added fuel to this fire.
Its still wrong, but anachronistically wrong a bit like how many elements the founding fathers put in which are good government but did so under the unforgivable sin of slavery. If that's too 'ancient history' for you, let's consider Brendan Eich's contribution to Firefox but also understand he is a homophobe. We can still use and appreciate Firefox's technical advancements without worrying about Eich's homophobia.
Age of consent skeptics are as old as time anyway. It rages on today in the modern libertarian party and incel culture. Anti-authoritarian and reactionary movements often become victimizers of children and women and racial/religious minorities because these groups are often protected by authority. When you remove authority, suddenly they are powerless and easy prey to whatever replaces that authority. The most obvious example are soldiers raping women in towns they take over.
Its still wrong, but anachronistically wrong a bit like how many elements the founding fathers put in which are good government but did so under the unforgivable sin of slavery. If that's too 'ancient history' for you, let's consider Brendan Eich's contribution to Firefox but also understand he is a homophobe. We can still use and appreciate Firefox's technical advancements without worrying about Eich's homophobia.
Age of consent skeptics are as old as time anyway. It rages on today in the modern libertarian party and incel culture. Anti-authoritarian and reactionary movements often become victimizers of children and women and racial/religious minorities because these groups are often protected by authority. When you remove authority, suddenly they are powerless and easy prey to whatever replaces that authority. The most obvious example are soldiers raping women in towns they take over.
Really? Groupies below 15 were common?
She was 15 in 1962. I can't seem to find anything relevant in the wiki page mentioned for the time before that.
skepticism about age of consent laws is a time-honored libertarian tradition. it's not even strictly foucauldian. and as a nietzschean, foucault didn't believe in moral authority.
In one of the largest high schools in Texas, we weren't allowed to leave campus, we couldn't even take our lunch out of the double doors and eat our sandwich outside.
It's something I absolutely despise about our contemporary culture.
I live in Latin America now and envy the kids for getting 45 minutes free at lunch time to hang out outside, socialize, buy from the street vendors that will gather at that time, maybe run a quick errand.
My parents point out that they had a high school experience in the US more like the Latin American one. Something is changing about the US, and it's rotten.
There's a book that presents a good overview of some of these changes: "The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure" (by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt).
It's something I absolutely despise about our contemporary culture.
I live in Latin America now and envy the kids for getting 45 minutes free at lunch time to hang out outside, socialize, buy from the street vendors that will gather at that time, maybe run a quick errand.
My parents point out that they had a high school experience in the US more like the Latin American one. Something is changing about the US, and it's rotten.
There's a book that presents a good overview of some of these changes: "The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure" (by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt).
Anecdotally, I've heard of that more at suburban schools where you pretty much have to access and leave the campus via car. At my high school in Chicago (2003-2007, ~2,000 students) we were free to leave the campus at any time and often spent lunch at a nearby hot dog stand or sitting in the park and hanging out. The only restriction was that you had to re-enter through specific entries so they could check school IDs. I think it's because the school is in the middle of the city and very pedestrian friendly. One kid I knew even lived across the street from the school and would go home to make himself some lunch. I know from friends and family that suburban high schools in the Chicagoland area were more strict with their off-campus policies as there wasn't any pedestrian access to the schools. I just think suburban schools don't want traffic jams in the parking lot during every lunch period.
Yes, same here at a high school in a medium-sized city at around the same time. Although there wasn't any restriction on where you could return, either, but I think that's more of a smaller vs. bigger city thing. I do remember that some kids got their privilege to leave campus rescinded because they got caught extremely, obviously high after going to do bong rips at someone's house near the school.
In elementary and middle school, we weren't technically supposed to leave the schoolyard but the monitoring was lax enough that older kids frequently got away with it.
In elementary and middle school, we weren't technically supposed to leave the schoolyard but the monitoring was lax enough that older kids frequently got away with it.
I meant to say "we weren't allowed to leave the building" rather than "campus".
Though I don't think a parking lot traffic jam is a sufficient reason either. There are already repercussions for arriving to school late which is what prevents the morning traffic jam from being a problem. Someone shouldn't be allowed to leave at all just because they would be late if they don't come back in time to park. I don't even understand how that could sound convincing to you.
That's just the type of thinking that gives us zero tolerance policies.
Though I don't think a parking lot traffic jam is a sufficient reason either. There are already repercussions for arriving to school late which is what prevents the morning traffic jam from being a problem. Someone shouldn't be allowed to leave at all just because they would be late if they don't come back in time to park. I don't even understand how that could sound convincing to you.
That's just the type of thinking that gives us zero tolerance policies.
Yeah, I went to highschool in a suburb where the walk home was around an hour (which I know because it was tradition to do so after finals), so you pretty much had to drive or take the bus. Grades 9 and 10 weren't allowed outside at all, grades 11 and 12 were allowed out during lunch (but as far as I remember weren't allowed off of school grounds).
you a whitney younger?
Our principal refused to let students leave campus, as a student had gotten in a car wreck over lunch and died at a previous school.
So, there's some logic there. They are nominally responsible for you during school hours.
So, there's some logic there. They are nominally responsible for you during school hours.
I call this "outlier driven policy"; one single instance of some thing happening some where at some time within the past 100 years means that everyone for perpetuity has to follow some new rule because the lim(x -> 0) risk is simply too much.
For instance, there was one person, 2 decades ago, flying out of france, who hid a bomb in his shoes so today we are all still taking off our shoes, all of us, each time, on every flight. Splendid.
It's a completely reactionary narrative driven policy that really illustrates the probabilistic illiteracy, cost/benefit illiteracy, lack of critical thinking ... it's like we've taken the structure of folksy tales like "one child did that and they poked their eye out" and are all like "ok, let's make official policy around this"
This is how all the fun park equipment has been dismantled and replaced with things no child past the age of 4 or so would ever find appealing because the existence of a non-zero risk, regardless of how small that is, are all treated equivalently with their volumes cranked to 11.
For instance, there was one person, 2 decades ago, flying out of france, who hid a bomb in his shoes so today we are all still taking off our shoes, all of us, each time, on every flight. Splendid.
It's a completely reactionary narrative driven policy that really illustrates the probabilistic illiteracy, cost/benefit illiteracy, lack of critical thinking ... it's like we've taken the structure of folksy tales like "one child did that and they poked their eye out" and are all like "ok, let's make official policy around this"
This is how all the fun park equipment has been dismantled and replaced with things no child past the age of 4 or so would ever find appealing because the existence of a non-zero risk, regardless of how small that is, are all treated equivalently with their volumes cranked to 11.
> For instance, there was one person, 2 decades ago, flying out of france, who hid a bomb in his shoes so today we are all still taking off our shoes, all of us, each time, on every flight. Splendid.
I'm still disappointed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempted bombing didn't lead to a similar policy.
> it's like we've taken the structure of folksy tales like "one child did that and they poked their eye out" and are all like "ok, let's make official policy around this"
Growing up, my mom was repeatedly told not to play with a button on a string because, "some kid put his eye out". Being a kid my mom always thought that was just a stupid story. She played withing a button on a string, and didn't know anyone that happened to. Decades later, as an adult she was telling the story about this weird and admonition to a distant cousin (2nd?) of hers, and her cousin got real quiet, and simply stated, "That was my brother," and then told the story about how it happened, and that he did lose sight in one of his eyes he struck it with a button tied to a string.
I'm still disappointed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempted bombing didn't lead to a similar policy.
> it's like we've taken the structure of folksy tales like "one child did that and they poked their eye out" and are all like "ok, let's make official policy around this"
Growing up, my mom was repeatedly told not to play with a button on a string because, "some kid put his eye out". Being a kid my mom always thought that was just a stupid story. She played withing a button on a string, and didn't know anyone that happened to. Decades later, as an adult she was telling the story about this weird and admonition to a distant cousin (2nd?) of hers, and her cousin got real quiet, and simply stated, "That was my brother," and then told the story about how it happened, and that he did lose sight in one of his eyes he struck it with a button tied to a string.
> For instance, there was one person, 2 decades ago, flying out of france, who hid a bomb in his shoes so today we are all still taking off our shoes, all of us, each time, on every flight. Splendid.
I feel like the shoe inspection is silly, but this seems like the wrong logic. To the extent that there's a vulnerability in the system, patching it makes sense, even if it's only been exploited once.
No one has closed network sessions with unauthenticated RSTs lately like we used to do in the 90s-- so is the sequence check no longer necessary?
Of course, one needs to consider the cost-benefit of every mitigation measure and whether you're addressing the biggest risks.
I feel like the shoe inspection is silly, but this seems like the wrong logic. To the extent that there's a vulnerability in the system, patching it makes sense, even if it's only been exploited once.
No one has closed network sessions with unauthenticated RSTs lately like we used to do in the 90s-- so is the sequence check no longer necessary?
Of course, one needs to consider the cost-benefit of every mitigation measure and whether you're addressing the biggest risks.
I bet a lot of people on this website will nod their head and think to themselves that they agree with your comment (because of the specific examples you gave), but in my experience fewer than 1% of the general population and probably fewer than 5% of people on HN today are capable of actually thinking in a utilitarian manner. Even my smartest and most numerate acquaintances (let’s say +2-4 stddev, mostly scientists and engineers) have to be pushed to thinking this way about specific issues unless they have a background in economics or something. The concept of making decisions as part of an explicit optimization strategy, rather than as a result of applying a set of heuristics, is completely foreign to most people. Giving specific examples almost invariably pisses people off, because they’re emotionally invested in the heuristics being accurate. They would probably be fine in a tribal group of ~100 people with no out-group communication, but they scale very poorly to billions of people with an internet connection.
I mean, speaking of the shoes, yes it was one time. But once it was shown to work, there would probably have been many copycats without a countermeasure.
In the EU they use none of that security theater and it hasn't happened.
You're doing the thing I just talked about
You're doing the thing I just talked about
That seems reasonable to me. Lunch breaks are typically ~20 minutes long in high school. It’s easy to think, “I can go pick up food 10 minutes away” without considering the line to exit the parking lot, walking to the car, etc. A bunch of teenagers speeding to beat the bell is a terrible idea, and can definitely lead to tickets or deaths.
I have always heard of lunch being about an hour long…
> Our principal refused to let students leave campus, as a student had gotten in a car wreck over lunch and died at a previous school. So, there's some logic there
By that logic, we should never let students leave at all, because certainly some have been killed in car wrecks on the way home.
There is NO logic in preventing people doing that which they will do later anyway.
By that logic, we should never let students leave at all, because certainly some have been killed in car wrecks on the way home.
There is NO logic in preventing people doing that which they will do later anyway.
No -- common law ascribes different responsibilities to a school during the school day, in comparison to before arriving or after leaving for the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis
The logic isn't "kids might die in a crash", it is that "schools are responsible for what happens to kids during the school day". The school administration isn't trying to be altruistic, they're trying to avoid liability for a death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis
The logic isn't "kids might die in a crash", it is that "schools are responsible for what happens to kids during the school day". The school administration isn't trying to be altruistic, they're trying to avoid liability for a death.
grecy(1)
[deleted]
What’s the point being made here? That if you take a picture of a building from a specific angle it’s difficult to tell the function of the building?
As referenced in the comment with the Foucault quote, the modern school and prison are both structures designed in a way that makes it easier for their authorities (wardens, guards, principals and teachers) to contain and control their captive populations (prisoners and students).
In his book "Discipline and Punish", Foucault argues that in the establishment of the modern prison, the mission of imprisonment shifted from punishing those who were imprisoned to reforming and disciplining them to become better citizens. The same organizing principles of command and control developed for "modern" prisons were applied to the "modern" school as well. I thought the game eerily demonstrated how similar prisons and schools look to one another. Both kinds of buildings are designed to limit access to the building and also egress.
In his book "Discipline and Punish", Foucault argues that in the establishment of the modern prison, the mission of imprisonment shifted from punishing those who were imprisoned to reforming and disciplining them to become better citizens. The same organizing principles of command and control developed for "modern" prisons were applied to the "modern" school as well. I thought the game eerily demonstrated how similar prisons and schools look to one another. Both kinds of buildings are designed to limit access to the building and also egress.
I doubt that is how schools functions and that they were trying to make obedient citizens that follows regular hours or whatever nonsense people conjure up.
The reason schools operate that way is simple: sheer inertia combined with just being impervious to reform.
The reason schools operate that way is simple: sheer inertia combined with just being impervious to reform.
What makes the the nonsense you're conjuring up, with no argument or research, more valid than that of the renowned philosophers you are trivially dismissing? Doubt is good, but strong, unjustified claims are not.
Because the education system wasn't in fact designed to produce factory workers for a regimented system.[1](http://hackeducation.com/2015/04/25/factory-model)
This is the problem with attributing purposes for which our ancestors never intended.
This is the problem with attributing purposes for which our ancestors never intended.
Interesting link, thanks for sharing. I read it and I think there's some miscommunication going on. The author is criticizing Sal Khan and like for suggesting that there was a deliberate, cohesive factory model (designed in order to..) whereas the commenter recounting Foucault here talks about the effects of the model, not its intention (designed in a way that...)
Indeed there is no mention of Foucault in that article. I read through her blog more and this is the first one I found that mentions the book in question http://hackeducation.com/2020/07/20/surveillance (also an interesting read)
Indeed there is no mention of Foucault in that article. I read through her blog more and this is the first one I found that mentions the book in question http://hackeducation.com/2020/07/20/surveillance (also an interesting read)
Renowned philosophers tend to be good in philosophy. They are not necessary great in history, sociology or how various organizations work. They have own biases and it is also pretty easy to take their claims out of context to sound like something much stronger.
Foucault in particular is known for his genealogical approach, though. I agree that it's very easy to misuse their claims.
Which philosophers? Foucault was talking about prisons, not schools.
Really interesting analysis: "schools operate that way because that's the way they are."
[deleted]
> The same organizing principles of command and control developed for "modern" prisons were applied to the "modern" school as well
You don't know much about prisons seems to me. As in, once one know just a little how it functions, the above sounds either extraordinary stupid.
You don't know much about prisons seems to me. As in, once one know just a little how it functions, the above sounds either extraordinary stupid.
Going to be honest though. School (at least mine) functioned very similarly to a prison, in fact, most prisons had better conditions than my secondary school.
There is a simple fact that schools can be glorified daycare so that workers can offload the burden of childcare. For this purpose, a prison makes sense. Despite not being the most humane considering the kids didn’t do any crime worthy of rehabilitation.
There is a simple fact that schools can be glorified daycare so that workers can offload the burden of childcare. For this purpose, a prison makes sense. Despite not being the most humane considering the kids didn’t do any crime worthy of rehabilitation.
I can't even look at school as not being a prison. It's one of the only places I've had the displeasure to be denied basic rights such as going to use a toilet.
Also one of the only places with a nontrivial amount of people who would lie about needing to go to the bathroom, many times per day, just to be disruptive and/or to get out of class.
aka "this is why we can't have nice things", juvenile edition :)
aka "this is why we can't have nice things", juvenile edition :)
I think you need to ask why a non trivial amount of people would lie about needing to go to the bathroom. This is not a common behavior of teenagers at home, in a museum, at camp, on a canoe trip, or just about anywhere else I can think of...
Pretty common at parties and other social gatherings.
Kids lie to avoid esting vegetables. Are vegetables prison?
Kids lie to avoid eating vegetables... because humans are evolutionary adapted to really like sugar, and they know that higher sugar foods exist.
Sugar = good is no longer an appropriate heuristic given the change in nutritional availability - in fact it is now harmful - so we force kids to behave differently.
It's not clear that school is similar. Is it not the case that people learn better when they are adequately stimulated and engaged? Even if not, how far should we go in making kids miserable to force them to learn more? Do we need to make them miserable or is there an alternative? This is what I mean by asking why, and it's not clear to me what all the answers are (it's a very complex question).
Sugar = good is no longer an appropriate heuristic given the change in nutritional availability - in fact it is now harmful - so we force kids to behave differently.
It's not clear that school is similar. Is it not the case that people learn better when they are adequately stimulated and engaged? Even if not, how far should we go in making kids miserable to force them to learn more? Do we need to make them miserable or is there an alternative? This is what I mean by asking why, and it's not clear to me what all the answers are (it's a very complex question).
> just to be disruptive and/or to get out of class
Stopping making a big deal out of it will remove the disruption factor. If you can just get up and leave and nobody pays attention the act will quickly lose its effect.
> to get out of class
This suggests there's a bigger problem there if people are so desperate to get out as to fake a bathroom break, but anyway, why not let them? What's the harm? If these people are bored/disgruntled/etc then you already lost the game and no amount of force or coercion will change their mind.
Stopping making a big deal out of it will remove the disruption factor. If you can just get up and leave and nobody pays attention the act will quickly lose its effect.
> to get out of class
This suggests there's a bigger problem there if people are so desperate to get out as to fake a bathroom break, but anyway, why not let them? What's the harm? If these people are bored/disgruntled/etc then you already lost the game and no amount of force or coercion will change their mind.
Teachers can deal with it. It's worth it to have to deal with the second order effects of folks lying to be disruptive or getting out of class so that we don't deny basic bathroom rights to those who need it most.
I have literally ZERO sympathy for any teacher who has shitty (haha) bathroom policies.
I have literally ZERO sympathy for any teacher who has shitty (haha) bathroom policies.
Streets are one of the only places that all bank robbers go after a robbery, just to get out of the bank.
This is why we can't have streets... ?!?
Jokes aside, you just provided a very good example of the prison mindset:
Instead of trying to understand the "problem" of students going too often to the bathroom, the default choice is to make the behavior prohibited.
This is why we can't have streets... ?!?
Jokes aside, you just provided a very good example of the prison mindset:
Instead of trying to understand the "problem" of students going too often to the bathroom, the default choice is to make the behavior prohibited.
I remember hearing that my school was actually modelled after a prison. Don't know if it was actually true, but it sure looked like it, since it had this large, multi-storey hall with classrooms all around it.
A bit like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Kilmainh...
A bit like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Kilmainh...
My kid's suburban high school sits amidst a large grouping of light industrial warehouses. We joke that the district built it's own warehouse...for kids.
I would guess that the intention is for the readers to think about other similarities between schools and prisons, and the the outsides of the buildings are just a convenient way to inspire more comparisons.
Here's a really good article to explain the consequences of schools being the holding pens which they are:
http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html
I also recall this article from his book "Hackers & Painters".
I just found it fun. Like the "boobs or armpit" type of games on Newgrounds.
Before I go off topic, very cool and interesting app. I was surprised by the number of times I got it wrong.
Now then...
There's a lot of people crapping on schools and teachers in this thread, and as a former teacher and spouse of a teacher I'd like to point out a few things:
Schools and teachers provide a vital service. Not only do they educate our children, they babysit our children, and the pandemic has shown us how vital that aspect of the service is. I've anecdotally seen many parents on social media complain about having to look after their own children during the day.
Schools need arbitrary and often draconian seeming rules, such as refusing toilet breaks, not allowing food or drinks in a classroom, or enforcing strict dress protocols. If you truly knew how manipulative a group of children can be, when ganged together you'd understand this. Toilet breaks are often abused, with children skipping class to, for instance, vape in the toilets. I've had classes where I've spent my break cleaning up chewing gum, spilled drinks and crumbs from students sneaking snacks. When kids aren't in uniform, or under a strict dress code they'll push the limits of what is acceptable and additionally bully the poorer children that can't afford the latest fashions.
If we want schools to ease up on such restrictions then you need to invest in more teachers and other staff. I've had science classes with 35 students all with Bunsen burners merrily flaming, flammable and corrosive chemicals in beakers at their desks, and syringes or pipettes (also read as water pistols). Or my engineering class with 20 soldering irons all on, pillar drills being operated, while a couple of kids are etching circuit boards. Try running that type of class without strict rules and you're liable to see injury, loss of employment, a lawsuit and possibly prison.
If I'd had smaller class sizes, or more staff in the classroom, I could have relaxed my rules. I'd know the kids better, have built up a more trusting relationship been able to monitor who was doing what with greater efficiency.
These are kids we're talking about and they're developing, experimenting, learning, and struggling to navigate a complex social dynamic in a very unnatural environment. Without rules in place, they'll screw up. For God's sake, how many of you "adults" have had to sign a code-of-conduct agreement before being allowed admittance to a tech conference or hackathon? Even grownups can't be trusted.
Now then...
There's a lot of people crapping on schools and teachers in this thread, and as a former teacher and spouse of a teacher I'd like to point out a few things:
Schools and teachers provide a vital service. Not only do they educate our children, they babysit our children, and the pandemic has shown us how vital that aspect of the service is. I've anecdotally seen many parents on social media complain about having to look after their own children during the day.
Schools need arbitrary and often draconian seeming rules, such as refusing toilet breaks, not allowing food or drinks in a classroom, or enforcing strict dress protocols. If you truly knew how manipulative a group of children can be, when ganged together you'd understand this. Toilet breaks are often abused, with children skipping class to, for instance, vape in the toilets. I've had classes where I've spent my break cleaning up chewing gum, spilled drinks and crumbs from students sneaking snacks. When kids aren't in uniform, or under a strict dress code they'll push the limits of what is acceptable and additionally bully the poorer children that can't afford the latest fashions.
If we want schools to ease up on such restrictions then you need to invest in more teachers and other staff. I've had science classes with 35 students all with Bunsen burners merrily flaming, flammable and corrosive chemicals in beakers at their desks, and syringes or pipettes (also read as water pistols). Or my engineering class with 20 soldering irons all on, pillar drills being operated, while a couple of kids are etching circuit boards. Try running that type of class without strict rules and you're liable to see injury, loss of employment, a lawsuit and possibly prison.
If I'd had smaller class sizes, or more staff in the classroom, I could have relaxed my rules. I'd know the kids better, have built up a more trusting relationship been able to monitor who was doing what with greater efficiency.
These are kids we're talking about and they're developing, experimenting, learning, and struggling to navigate a complex social dynamic in a very unnatural environment. Without rules in place, they'll screw up. For God's sake, how many of you "adults" have had to sign a code-of-conduct agreement before being allowed admittance to a tech conference or hackathon? Even grownups can't be trusted.
> they babysit our children
I think realizing that daycare with some level of adult supervision and guidance is the primary purpose of much of K-12 could allow us to design better schools that are more like kindergartens, recreation centers, laboratory facilities, art and performance studios, and libraries, and less like factories and prisons.
Though thinking about the factory bit, I do think that craft and maker facilities, as well as gardens and outdoor building areas, are nice to have in schools, making students the creators and crafters rather than the products.
I think realizing that daycare with some level of adult supervision and guidance is the primary purpose of much of K-12 could allow us to design better schools that are more like kindergartens, recreation centers, laboratory facilities, art and performance studios, and libraries, and less like factories and prisons.
Though thinking about the factory bit, I do think that craft and maker facilities, as well as gardens and outdoor building areas, are nice to have in schools, making students the creators and crafters rather than the products.
> If you truly knew how manipulative a group of children can be, when ganged together you'd understand this. Toilet breaks are often abused, with children skipping class to, for instance, vape in the toilets
Doesn't justify denying basic biological rights.
Doesn't justify denying basic biological rights.
> vape in the toilets
I am not sure how preventing them from vaping there and then would solve the root cause of the problem; they'll just vape later or learn to hide it better (and focus their resources on breaking the rules and getting away with it, as opposed to learning) and now they have an extra reason to be against you. Also, how is this problem dealt with during recess? Unless there’s someone monitoring them inside the bathroom or searching them to make sure they don’t bring any vaping products I don’t see how you can prevent someone from vaping inside a bathroom stall.
> where I've spent my break cleaning up chewing gum, spilled drinks and crumbs from students sneaking snacks
Why can't whoever made the mess be forced to clean it? That way the system would self-regulate. Those who enjoy their snacks cleanly can keep doing so, those who make a mess have to clean it up and have an incentive to not make a mess in the future if they want their snacks.
> how many of you "adults" have had to sign a code-of-conduct agreement before being allowed admittance to a tech conference or hackathon?
"Codes of conduct" are virtue signalling to appeal to some vocal minorities but I have yet to see evidence of it actually solving the real problem. Someone who wants to behave appropriately doesn't need one, and someone who wants to be a dick already intends to break the (unspoken) rules regardless of a CoC being in place.
I am not sure how preventing them from vaping there and then would solve the root cause of the problem; they'll just vape later or learn to hide it better (and focus their resources on breaking the rules and getting away with it, as opposed to learning) and now they have an extra reason to be against you. Also, how is this problem dealt with during recess? Unless there’s someone monitoring them inside the bathroom or searching them to make sure they don’t bring any vaping products I don’t see how you can prevent someone from vaping inside a bathroom stall.
> where I've spent my break cleaning up chewing gum, spilled drinks and crumbs from students sneaking snacks
Why can't whoever made the mess be forced to clean it? That way the system would self-regulate. Those who enjoy their snacks cleanly can keep doing so, those who make a mess have to clean it up and have an incentive to not make a mess in the future if they want their snacks.
> how many of you "adults" have had to sign a code-of-conduct agreement before being allowed admittance to a tech conference or hackathon?
"Codes of conduct" are virtue signalling to appeal to some vocal minorities but I have yet to see evidence of it actually solving the real problem. Someone who wants to behave appropriately doesn't need one, and someone who wants to be a dick already intends to break the (unspoken) rules regardless of a CoC being in place.
Mandatory babysitting for everyone for more than 12 years is not nice. The whole thing needs to get unbundled.
This reminds me of an essay that Paul Graham wrote that compares schools to prisons:
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
> Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. They also need to keep them fed, and as far as possible prevent them from killing one another. Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it.
> In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something. But beyond that they didn't want to have too much to do with the kids. Like prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric.
> Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. They also need to keep them fed, and as far as possible prevent them from killing one another. Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it.
> In outline, it was the same at the schools I went to. The most important thing was to stay on the premises. While there, the authorities fed you, prevented overt violence, and made some effort to teach you something. But beyond that they didn't want to have too much to do with the kids. Like prison wardens, the teachers mostly left us to ourselves. And, like prisoners, the culture we created was barbaric.
> Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want.
I went to a public school that was most definitely not like this. My teachers were really invested in the students and often perform significant emotional labor for children who don't otherwise have supportive adult relationships. I went to many schools (moved a lot) and they all largely had teachers who were passionate about the well being of the children under their care. I had a very poor home life and having teachers who identified I was going into a suicidal spiral was very useful when I was a teenager.
I went to a public school that was most definitely not like this. My teachers were really invested in the students and often perform significant emotional labor for children who don't otherwise have supportive adult relationships. I went to many schools (moved a lot) and they all largely had teachers who were passionate about the well being of the children under their care. I had a very poor home life and having teachers who identified I was going into a suicidal spiral was very useful when I was a teenager.
It turns out Paul Graham's experience is his own and not necessarily indicative of a larger trend or phenomenon.
It turns out that Americans' experiences are their own and not necessarily indicative of a larger trend or phenomenon in civilized countries.
We of course, are endlessly subjected to an artistic representation of it in Holywood films.
We of course, are endlessly subjected to an artistic representation of it in Holywood films.
I get what the comparison is about, I do. But really- how many different ways are there to house hundreds of people in an institutional setting?
Each ground-level classroom could have doors which open onto the surrounding garden. Upper floors can have external stairs, like personal residence buildings.
A school building could provide maximum natural light to the occupants. For example, it could have shape and orientation so most of its windows get sunlight throughout the year. Interior spaces can have skylights and be used for short-duration activities like restrooms, locker rooms, and equipment storage.
A school building could provide maximum natural light to the occupants. For example, it could have shape and orientation so most of its windows get sunlight throughout the year. Interior spaces can have skylights and be used for short-duration activities like restrooms, locker rooms, and equipment storage.
Why wouldn't a prison have natural light?
Just the idea of a school is worse than a prison:
- it’s mandatory
- closed confinement
- not allowed to do what you want in that closed area
- you’re being told what to do for at least 8-14 years
- you’re being told when to pee
- during the years there is no choice in what you want to learn
And at the end of your school/studies you’re asked to be creative and responsible
The following is specific to the USA:
1. School is not mandatory; education is mandatory. Ask any home schooler. A rare few private schools offer quite different experiences than the typical public school (e.g., the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools). This applies also to "closed confinement" and "control". Of course, opting out requires enlightened parenting and lots of resources.
2. You are constantly told what to do, but outside of some broad physical requirements there's really no forcing you to do what you're told. Choose some good coding/math/philosophy puzzles during the evening and work on them instead of paying attention in class. No one can control what you do in your head. You can similarly opt of almost all graded work; especially if you stick to AP courses then the grades you are assigned by the instructor you don't much matter anyways.
3. You are not given a choice in what your lectures cover, but you can choose what to learn and eschew any required "creativity"/"responsibility".
In other words, you can always choose not to play the game and still turn out just fine. Having a friend group that reinforces this option is helpful; I was part of one and today we're all very highly paid and well-educated professionals because -- not in spite of -- our complete disengagement from the high school game (including the academic component).
To any highschoolers reading this: if you find yourself intellectually dead and generally creeped out by high school culture, consider ignoring your coursework to study for a GED and then simply attending a nearby high school instead of college.
However, at least finish your freshman year somewhat engaged. Many aspects of American culture are easier to understand if you know how the vast majority of its citizens are socialized. E.g., many modern political rallies are intentionally choreographed to match the structure and emotional melody of a high school pep rally. Attending a few yourself as an open-minded and non-judgemental exercise in field anthropology will be helpful.
1. School is not mandatory; education is mandatory. Ask any home schooler. A rare few private schools offer quite different experiences than the typical public school (e.g., the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools). This applies also to "closed confinement" and "control". Of course, opting out requires enlightened parenting and lots of resources.
2. You are constantly told what to do, but outside of some broad physical requirements there's really no forcing you to do what you're told. Choose some good coding/math/philosophy puzzles during the evening and work on them instead of paying attention in class. No one can control what you do in your head. You can similarly opt of almost all graded work; especially if you stick to AP courses then the grades you are assigned by the instructor you don't much matter anyways.
3. You are not given a choice in what your lectures cover, but you can choose what to learn and eschew any required "creativity"/"responsibility".
In other words, you can always choose not to play the game and still turn out just fine. Having a friend group that reinforces this option is helpful; I was part of one and today we're all very highly paid and well-educated professionals because -- not in spite of -- our complete disengagement from the high school game (including the academic component).
To any highschoolers reading this: if you find yourself intellectually dead and generally creeped out by high school culture, consider ignoring your coursework to study for a GED and then simply attending a nearby high school instead of college.
However, at least finish your freshman year somewhat engaged. Many aspects of American culture are easier to understand if you know how the vast majority of its citizens are socialized. E.g., many modern political rallies are intentionally choreographed to match the structure and emotional melody of a high school pep rally. Attending a few yourself as an open-minded and non-judgemental exercise in field anthropology will be helpful.
> School is not mandatory; education is mandatory. Ask any home schooler.
Home schooling is not a suitable alternative IMO. Social contact with your peers is important too; having to forfeit that just to not be in a prison-like system seems like a bad deal.
> Choose some good coding/math/philosophy puzzles during the evening and work on them instead of paying attention in class
So in addition to wasting 8 hours per day in class you need to do extra work in the evening?
I think in both cases we need to fix the system instead of putting the burden onto students to put up with it or work around it with the solutions that you describe.
Home schooling is not a suitable alternative IMO. Social contact with your peers is important too; having to forfeit that just to not be in a prison-like system seems like a bad deal.
> Choose some good coding/math/philosophy puzzles during the evening and work on them instead of paying attention in class
So in addition to wasting 8 hours per day in class you need to do extra work in the evening?
I think in both cases we need to fix the system instead of putting the burden onto students to put up with it or work around it with the solutions that you describe.
> Home schooling is not a suitable alternative IMO. Social contact with your peers is important too. having to forfeit that just to not be in a prison-like system seems like a bad deal.
This is why above-average students should just go to college after a year or two of high school. 16 year olds and 18 year olds are in fact peers (or can be without drawing arbitrary lines).
> I think in both cases we need to fix the system instead of putting the burden onto students to put up with it or work around it with the solutions that you describe.
The problem is that your suggestion is completely non-actionable for students.
It's also not particularly actionable for a parent trying to help their school-aged child today. Even if a parent does manage to change a huge entrenched institution -- highly unlikely! -- it'll be at least a decade after their own kid is out of the system.
So. Yes, I agree, you too should run for school board. But don't count on systemic change if you're trying to help someone currently in the system.
This is why above-average students should just go to college after a year or two of high school. 16 year olds and 18 year olds are in fact peers (or can be without drawing arbitrary lines).
> I think in both cases we need to fix the system instead of putting the burden onto students to put up with it or work around it with the solutions that you describe.
The problem is that your suggestion is completely non-actionable for students.
It's also not particularly actionable for a parent trying to help their school-aged child today. Even if a parent does manage to change a huge entrenched institution -- highly unlikely! -- it'll be at least a decade after their own kid is out of the system.
So. Yes, I agree, you too should run for school board. But don't count on systemic change if you're trying to help someone currently in the system.
The idea that homeschooling is devoid of social contact is a bit naive I think. Of course different parents have different styles - it is entirely possible to close off your child from social contact. But most homeschoolers I know have their kids doing all kinds of things throughout the day. Sports, group lessons in topics where the parent's knowledge is lacking, and overall more free time to visit friends' houses and do things that are actually interesting. The real trade off of homeschooling is with respect to the effort required by the parents.
I feel USA is more liberal in that perspective. I would agree with the system if the options you mention were also available in our country (NL) but they aren’t. You can’t even move to homeschooling when you’ve only enlisted one of your children to a public school. As soon as you e done that there’s no way back. Not even for future children or when you come to the conclusion that your child doesn’t flourish after a year of kindergarten. (Here a chool is when they are 4 years old and up)
While we're being hyperbolic and unhelpful, guess what? If you leave kids to their own devices they will play video games and watch Til Tok all day. Good luck with that.
That might be a better life for them. It’s not like schools actually teach useful skills.
Yikes. Someone had a bad experience I guess.
It's part of the larger situation that the buildings created by large bureaucracies all look about the same.
A lot of these images only show a very narrow look at what looks to be the entrance to some front desk style room. I'd be more interested in what the insides look like.
I've seen and been in enough of these kinds of buildings to make them absolute bottom of my list of places to see inside or out.
It’s an architectural style called “brutalism”, which has the predominant aesthetic of “a boot stamping on a human face forever”.
I mean, not really? I think you're projecting the behaviour of the USSR (or whatever) onto the architectural style. From an aesthetic perspective, brutalism can be surprisingly pleasing -- especially if you throw in some trees: https://twitter.com/Karl_poyzer/status/1246511600300896257
For me, the trees are the only things about those examples that I actually like. Absent the trees, they remind me of the Tricorn center in Portsmouth, which local folklore claims won two architectural awards: a professionally awarded one for being good, and an award from locals who had to live with it for being the worst.
The place has long since been demolished; I remember it from personal experience as a shopping centre where all the shops had closed, and as a car park where nobody parked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricorn_Centre
The place has long since been demolished; I remember it from personal experience as a shopping centre where all the shops had closed, and as a car park where nobody parked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricorn_Centre
The concrete are still rather ugly to me.
It's the distinctness and uniqueness of those examples, as well as that they're surrounded by trees/nature, that make them so beautiful. Brutalism as intentional art, not as an unintended byproduct of cost-saving or simply not caring.
The depressing nature of a lot of brutalist architecture (especially that created by governments) is the uniformity, homogeneity and the mass-produced faux-utilitarian feeling it evokes, as if the inhabitants are all interchangeable peons with no individual spirit. It's a reminder of the depressing local conditions that lead to that architecture coming into being in the first place.
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jan/13/brut...
The depressing nature of a lot of brutalist architecture (especially that created by governments) is the uniformity, homogeneity and the mass-produced faux-utilitarian feeling it evokes, as if the inhabitants are all interchangeable peons with no individual spirit. It's a reminder of the depressing local conditions that lead to that architecture coming into being in the first place.
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jan/13/brut...
Brutalism is simply an architectural style characterized by the use of raw concrete. It can be done well in various ways and badly in various ways, like virtually any style.
It's worth noting that Phil is not just wrong about brutalism but also wrong about these examples being (primarily) brutalist. Not generally using raw concrete, they would not be considered brutalist. The modern "box" has been largely discarded by contemporary institutional architects in favor of rough, pseudo-gabbled, uh, crap, as shown in the majority of these examples.
I'd say a bad brutalist building is like a rough bureaucratic dictate whereas present bad institutional architecture is like a bureaucratic dictate but rewritten with contemporary niceness guides - "this is a notice concerning your rights under the involuntary amputation act"
It's worth noting that Phil is not just wrong about brutalism but also wrong about these examples being (primarily) brutalist. Not generally using raw concrete, they would not be considered brutalist. The modern "box" has been largely discarded by contemporary institutional architects in favor of rough, pseudo-gabbled, uh, crap, as shown in the majority of these examples.
I'd say a bad brutalist building is like a rough bureaucratic dictate whereas present bad institutional architecture is like a bureaucratic dictate but rewritten with contemporary niceness guides - "this is a notice concerning your rights under the involuntary amputation act"
To my aesthetic sense, virtually every “brutalist” structure feels authoritarian and dystopian to me. It is not only a good architectural style for prisons, but for any other building that is built with the intention of resembling a prison, which is what makes it so useful for government offices and the like.
Have you ever set up a high-occupancy building in a structure that isn’t rectilinear? It’s a space efficiency nightmare to fit naturally rectangular fixtures and appliances to rounded walls. I worked in a beautiful post-modernist building with a terrible architectural oversight: the aesthetically charming glass panels acted as a lens that focused light in a way that heated the whole office up. The AC had to be cranked up high just to survive in there. I would take a well-lit, well-ventilated box over a more architecturally creative space that causes its occupants problems.
Feelings on brutalism aside, only one[0] of the ten buildings could reasonably be called categorized as such.
Boring? Yes. Cold and functional? Sure. Just not brutalist.
Brutalist architecture is often considered soulless, but soullessness (in and of itself) !== brutalism.
[0] https://res.cloudinary.com/schoolprison/10_wwfagw.jpg (which was a school)
Boring? Yes. Cold and functional? Sure. Just not brutalist.
Brutalist architecture is often considered soulless, but soullessness (in and of itself) !== brutalism.
[0] https://res.cloudinary.com/schoolprison/10_wwfagw.jpg (which was a school)
Ah yes, neoclassical facades, the defining feature of brutalism.
https://res.cloudinary.com/schoolprison/7_pexlbe.jpg
https://res.cloudinary.com/schoolprison/7_pexlbe.jpg
Although your classification of the images presented above is incorrect, brutalism can actually be quite a beautiful architectural style. Except perhaps when attempted by American educational institutions.
I was surprised that this was relatively so easy: you don't have to understand very much about the two types of buildings to spot important functional differences.
As other people have commented, space for windows is crucial. (And, at least 2 of the pictures had identifying words in different languages) I scored 10 out of 10 and the game bounced me out.
As other people have commented, space for windows is crucial. (And, at least 2 of the pictures had identifying words in different languages) I scored 10 out of 10 and the game bounced me out.
Yeah, 東京都立新宿高等学校 and Tóth Árpád Gimnázium were freebies.
I was pretty ready to upvote this, but then I scored 9/10, (the one I got wrong had Chinese/Mandarin writing on - another I got right kind of looked like a school but said HMP, I'm British, I know that's Her Majesty's Prison, so 'swings and roundabouts').
So... what's the point of the site?
It's just a bunch of buildings. The onea I saw could be labeled just about anything (hospital, office, court, etc).
It's just a bunch of buildings. The onea I saw could be labeled just about anything (hospital, office, court, etc).
A more meaningful comparison would be bathroom privileges.
In prison you can pretty much poop or get a drink of water whenever you want. In school you need special permission, and hope the teacher wasn't in a bad mood or that 3 other kids hadn't needed to pee in the last half hour, meeting some mental quota the teacher has for the appropriate # of people that should have to use the toilet during a given period of time.
Seriously, it seemed like a revolutionary concept when I hit college and realized "Hold on, I can just get up & go?." Or that (absent computer labs) I could bring a cup of coffee or bottle of soda with me to class, and that common etiquette even allowed for a bit of food if it wasn't noisy to eat or have a powerful smell.
In prison you can pretty much poop or get a drink of water whenever you want. In school you need special permission, and hope the teacher wasn't in a bad mood or that 3 other kids hadn't needed to pee in the last half hour, meeting some mental quota the teacher has for the appropriate # of people that should have to use the toilet during a given period of time.
Seriously, it seemed like a revolutionary concept when I hit college and realized "Hold on, I can just get up & go?." Or that (absent computer labs) I could bring a cup of coffee or bottle of soda with me to class, and that common etiquette even allowed for a bit of food if it wasn't noisy to eat or have a powerful smell.
When I was eight years old I had a teacher who told us that if we needed to use the bathroom, rather than ask "can I use the bathroom?" we should instead say "I'm going to the bathroom". She said she would never stop us from going, but that we should at least let her know why we're leaving the room.
I never got to experience that again at school after I left the second grade.
I never got to experience that again at school after I left the second grade.
I like her. Last time I taught HS I told my students that I would never deny them the right to go to the bathroom, but that if they went more than three times in a week (or something) I would send a note to the nurse so she could discuss a possible health issue with them and their parents.
Going to the bathroom more than three times a week means they have a health issue? Seems a bit heavy-handed. Lots of kids get bullied and would rather go to the bathroom during class when no one else is in the bathroom. At some point, it becomes routine so it makes sense that you would go to the bathroom during the same class. That said, my world history class in high school was so boring, I would ask to go to the bathroom and just walk around the school for 10 minutes. It was a couple hours after lunch, so it made sense that I was going number 2.
No, it doesn't "mean they have a health issue", and I didn't say that it did. Part of the teacher's job is to look for signs of abuse, bullying, and health problems. I'm not a doctor. I see a possible symptom, I'll bring it to the attention of people who can help. If they are using the bathroom frequently because they are being bullied then I am exactly doing my job in the best way possible by alerting the nurse, who can alert the counselor, etc.
Getting bullied so much you're afraid to use the bathroom may not be a health issue, but it sure is an issue. If I was a parent I would want to know if that was happening.
Why would you do that? That doesn't seem very trusting of your students. People need to go to the bathroom several times a day, there's no reason to think that needing to go to the bathroom in your class is an indication of a health issue.
Good question. I tried to treat my students as adults, to the occasional chagrin of the administration, as much as possible. I definitely did not trust them—I knew too much—but I tried to pretend that I did. So my ploy was to discourage the students who would otherwise go hang out in the bathroom every single class. Of course one needs to go several times per day. But that does not translate to every time my class meets.
For my context here, I went to a high school that was centered around progressive education principles and I never had to ask to go to the bathroom. There were no disciplinary policies like that. And in fact, everything was fine. We all still worked hard, paid attention, and got our diplomas. I think too many teachers assume students are all malicious gremlins trying as hard as they can to avoid school. Turns out, most adults will start to chafe too if you tell them they have to ask to go to the bathroom after the third time doing so in your presence, let alone if you make them ask every time. And some adults will even use bathroom breaks as an excuse to waste time.
So be it! That's life.
So be it! That's life.
Your school sounds like the sort of place that would select for well behaved children whose parents had the ability and wherewithal to select a progressive school. I don't think policies like that work in schools filled to the brim with students who absolutely do not care about school in the slightest.
People who absolutely do not care about school and don’t want to be there are unlikely to attain much benefit from school. I think this is true no matter how much you try to force them to pay attention, punish them for skipping, leaving class regularly or simply daydreaming while ignoring the instructor. There just isn’t much use imposing the will of an authority on someone who has their own free will which isn’t aligned and doesn’t want to be dominated. In my opinion, success at that sort of endeavor should not be celebrated. A student should only be in school if they want to be there.
Perhaps, but the policies we do have in the US pretty clearly do not work either. Beyond that I think treating children in a humanist fashion is an ethical obligation we hold as adults, but this perspective is apparently quite radical.
>> I think too many teachers assume students are all malicious gremlins trying
It only takes a few to ruin it for everybody.
It only takes a few to ruin it for everybody.
Look, I’m with you (although nothing can be “centered around” anything). But most schools are not organized that way, and there’s only so much one teacher can do to buck the system. As it was, I got fired from that particular job after two years, and it wasn’t because I was too strict, certainly.
>nothing can be “centered around” anything
Not quite sure what you're getting at here but insofar as progressive education was an explicit philosophy reflected in policies and actions, it was centered.
>But most schools are not organized that way, and there’s only so much one teacher can do to buck the system. As it was, I got fired from that particular job after two years, and it wasn’t because I was too strict, certainly.
No disagreement there, and I'm sorry to hear you got fired. I'm sure your students appreciated you doing your part to make things less shitty.
Not quite sure what you're getting at here but insofar as progressive education was an explicit philosophy reflected in policies and actions, it was centered.
>But most schools are not organized that way, and there’s only so much one teacher can do to buck the system. As it was, I got fired from that particular job after two years, and it wasn’t because I was too strict, certainly.
No disagreement there, and I'm sorry to hear you got fired. I'm sure your students appreciated you doing your part to make things less shitty.
It was “centered on” those things, not “around”.
Ah! Perhaps if my English teacher had been more of a hardcore disciplinarian...
I'm not going to assume anything because it may have just been what you told the children, but if you actually sent notes to the nurse without talking to a kid beforehand, you're definitely overstepping.
It's perfectly normal for bowel movements to be on a schedule. If a student it leaving your class multiple time per week then have a discussion to see what's going on, you might learn something about their life that paints them in a new light. Or, maybe discuss the possibility of going before class starts if possible.
I think people are downvoting your original comment because referring a student directly to the nurse is a strange thing to threaten upfront.
It's perfectly normal for bowel movements to be on a schedule. If a student it leaving your class multiple time per week then have a discussion to see what's going on, you might learn something about their life that paints them in a new light. Or, maybe discuss the possibility of going before class starts if possible.
I think people are downvoting your original comment because referring a student directly to the nurse is a strange thing to threaten upfront.
I did in fact talk to them beforehand, and only sent two notes in two years.
Kids abuse this, I went to an upper middle class Catholic school for middle school, and even there, bathrooms breaks were used as an excuse to go hang out in the bathroom and ultimately culminated in what amounted to a daily fight club, where there was a sense of honor if you got knocked out
That is ridiculous, and exactly the problem I remember from middle school (by high school the teachers had loosened up). 50% of your students are girls experiencing menstruation for the first time. Speaking from experience, in the first few years it pops up by surprise, or use go through pads (teenagers use pads instead of tampons generally, and they go bad more quickky) quicker than you expect. And since you normally change your pad in the morning before school, there’s a fixed window when you need to change it again.
Again speaking from experience, there’s nothing more humiliating than leaving a bloody mark in your desk because your teacher limits bathroom passes. And even if you think that you would make an exception, many well-behaved students won’t speak up, hoping they can make it to the next class. If you’re ‘enlightened’ enough to let your students go to the bathroom three times a week, you’re enlightened enough to call the truants on their BS without penalizing the rest of the class.
Again speaking from experience, there’s nothing more humiliating than leaving a bloody mark in your desk because your teacher limits bathroom passes. And even if you think that you would make an exception, many well-behaved students won’t speak up, hoping they can make it to the next class. If you’re ‘enlightened’ enough to let your students go to the bathroom three times a week, you’re enlightened enough to call the truants on their BS without penalizing the rest of the class.
In Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn notes that denying prisoners the right to go to the bathroom during lengthy interrogations was a standard tactic, and a surprisingly effective one. The shame of soiling ourselves is so deeply ingrained in us that many people will confess to things they didn't do just to avoid it, even when they know the consequence is years in the Gulag.
Yeah I got kicked out of class once in high school (affecting my attendance) because I couldn't hold it until the end of the class, the teacher said no, and my choice was between disobeying or whipping my dick out and peeing on the floor.
I of course chose disobeying, but I'm pretty sure that the teacher would be far less strict in the future if I went the other route.
I of course chose disobeying, but I'm pretty sure that the teacher would be far less strict in the future if I went the other route.
"I didn't get into college because I had to use the bathroom during class a lot" - no one, ever
Just turn on your voice recorder and go.
Just turn on your voice recorder and go.
I don't know about how things usually are because my kids aren't in HS yet, but I do know that their school district, during distance learning, has a blanket policy that parents are not allowed to record the teaching sessions. So I wouldn't be too surprised if voice recorders aren't allowed in many schools as well.
It sounds like that policy needs to be broken as thoroughly and consistently as possible, provided that you are in a one-party consent state.
I can't imagine any good reason for that policy other than covering for terrible people.
I can't imagine any good reason for that policy other than covering for terrible people.
> provided that you are in a one-party consent state
Is there an expectation of privacy in a public school classroom?
Is there an expectation of privacy in a public school classroom?
I'm no lawyer, but if I had to bet, I would assume that the wiretapping laws that would no doubt zealously be applied to such a recording event (if it ruffled the right feathers) wouldn't have an exception for that, as they were written before even speakerphones came into wide use.
Sometimes, breaking the rules is the only way to obtain real evidence. ;)
Who said I didn't get into college? Not every country works like the US, attendance has nothing to do with college admission.
The latter could have gotten you in some serious trouble. Better and more effective to just go in your pants.
Yeah, because students won't turn that into your permanent nickname mr. peepeepants.
They will, but you won't have to register as a sex offender. Major difference in life outcomes.
What crack are you smoking? You simply get up and walk to the restroom like any normal person would. Teachers can largely be ignored, if they physically do anything to you it's lawsuit time.
Depends on your school, class, and colour
No you can sue them in pretty much all cases if they put their hands on your kid.
I think you are dreaming.
Have you done that? Sue the powerful (a school board) from a position of powerlessness (black working class in the ghetto)? Probably not, unfair question. Do you really think it is a realistic prospect? Really?
Have you done that? Sue the powerful (a school board) from a position of powerlessness (black working class in the ghetto)? Probably not, unfair question. Do you really think it is a realistic prospect? Really?
There are toll-free hotlines for reporting teachers engaging in child abuse.
Obstructing a child from using the bathroom who needs to is a form of abuse. If that teacher then physically restrains or otherwise contacts/touches the child to prevent them, especially if it culminates in their wetting/soiling themselves, this starts resembling something along the lines of sexual abuse.
If there's one thing the USA can be relied on it's both society and the law leaning heavily in the direction of protecting the children, to a fault.
This situation is literally just a phone call away from completely ruining the teacher's career if not life.
Obstructing a child from using the bathroom who needs to is a form of abuse. If that teacher then physically restrains or otherwise contacts/touches the child to prevent them, especially if it culminates in their wetting/soiling themselves, this starts resembling something along the lines of sexual abuse.
If there's one thing the USA can be relied on it's both society and the law leaning heavily in the direction of protecting the children, to a fault.
This situation is literally just a phone call away from completely ruining the teacher's career if not life.
Have you any data for how well that works for poor black children?
I hear people with theories, but child services the world over are famous for nice theories and systematic abuse. Especially for minority and poor children
I hear people with theories, but child services the world over are famous for nice theories and systematic abuse. Especially for minority and poor children
So could the former because where I'm from there's a certain amount of times you can not be in a class (without a doctor's note that justifies it) before you face expulsion. IIRC that number is around 20 classes per school year, so that alone brought me to 1/20th of an expulsion.
And being the teen that I was, it's not like I had an otherwise perfect attendance in any of my high school years.
And being the teen that I was, it's not like I had an otherwise perfect attendance in any of my high school years.
One of my favorite memories of high school was making guacamole in my physics class. I finished the exam early and had some spare time. Lunch was at 1:30pm and I had breakfast 5:40am most mornings. The teacher walked over, grabbed a chip, scooped up some of the guac, and munched on it. "Luck for you, that's really good. Otherwise I'd kick you out of class"
Yes, meal times for kids in school are also poorly structured, often dictated by over-crowded facilities that can't hold enough people to let everyone eat at a normal lunch time. My kids' school starts at 8:50 am, but one of them has lunch 11:00 a.m. with 4 hours afterwards during which they can't eat. We let him bring a snack and tell him to let his teacher know his parents gave him permission to eat, and they should contact us if there's a problem. Though last year he also had a teacher who recognized the problem and had an unofficial "snack time". Plenty of teachers are not arbitrary & capricious in their rule making.
Although it might make sense to do some research about all this snacking all the time. It seems that while in the 50ies people ate 2-3 times a day nowadays its more like 6-8 times a day and we have a huge epidemic of obesity and diabetes.
4 hours without food seems very short, it only would be a problem if the main food source would be fast carbs which let the blood sugar drop very quickly afterwards.
4 hours without food seems very short, it only would be a problem if the main food source would be fast carbs which let the blood sugar drop very quickly afterwards.
I'm 5'7" and 130lbs (so not fat) and I definitely can't go four hours between meals. I get very angry.
>> I get very angry
Freudian slip?
Freudian slip?
This is a phenomena common enough to have its own word: hangry
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hangry
..and I just learned the word is over a century old, it's definitely not new slang.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hangry
..and I just learned the word is over a century old, it's definitely not new slang.
being hungry can make you grumpy
You should eat 6-8 times a day but smaller meals to prevent obesity. You should also avoid carbs in a majority of your meals and added sugars in all meals. Stick to healthy fats and the obesity problem reduces to none.
Obesity comes from ultimately consuming more calories than calories exerted. Your body learns (maybe this is the wrong word) to store fats when there are long periods of time without eating
Obesity comes from ultimately consuming more calories than calories exerted. Your body learns (maybe this is the wrong word) to store fats when there are long periods of time without eating
I strongly disagree with the 6-8 times, my strategy is one meal a day and it seems to work much better for me.
I strongly agree with the avoiding carbs and sticking to healthy fats and that it reduces the obesity problem to none.
I definitely agree that obesity comes from consuming more calories that exerting.
I strongly disagree that fat gets stored when you don't eat for a longer time. The exact opposite is the case, nothing can be stored when you don't eat. When you rise blood sugar the body releases insulin which is the fat storage hormone. So the less often you do it the less fat gets stored.
I strongly agree with the avoiding carbs and sticking to healthy fats and that it reduces the obesity problem to none.
I definitely agree that obesity comes from consuming more calories that exerting.
I strongly disagree that fat gets stored when you don't eat for a longer time. The exact opposite is the case, nothing can be stored when you don't eat. When you rise blood sugar the body releases insulin which is the fat storage hormone. So the less often you do it the less fat gets stored.
[deleted]
Authoritarianism in schools sucks, but bathroom privileges aren't a great comparison.
In the US, most prisons have an open, bare toilet in the cell shared by a few cell mates. Even if one can technically use it whenever, according to what @throwaway998662 says, in practice this means you can only crap during the 1-2 hours a day when your cell mate(s) are gone.
Yeah, you could get a capricious teacher that says "no" when you ask, but that doesn't seem like much in comparison to the degradation and potential for violence of using the toilet in prison...
In the US, most prisons have an open, bare toilet in the cell shared by a few cell mates. Even if one can technically use it whenever, according to what @throwaway998662 says, in practice this means you can only crap during the 1-2 hours a day when your cell mate(s) are gone.
Yeah, you could get a capricious teacher that says "no" when you ask, but that doesn't seem like much in comparison to the degradation and potential for violence of using the toilet in prison...
I remember sitting in third grade class, red in the face, hand patiently up in the air for minutes straight, simultaneously crying and pissing myself in my chair while Tiffany pointed and laughed at me with her bright red cheeks!
I was a good kid!
If I had of robbed or killed someone and been to Juvenile Hall, my pants would probably have been dry.
I was a good kid!
If I had of robbed or killed someone and been to Juvenile Hall, my pants would probably have been dry.
There is a middle ground between passive and aggressive called assertive. That is what one should aim for.
The world chews up and spits out good kids. I vowed early on that I wouldn't let anyone shit on me again and it really shaped my early life, not necessarily for the better. I overshot assertive by a decent margin.
Fortunately, I eventually settled into a healthy middle ground. I do wonder if there is a method of preparing "good kids" for the world of shit they are about to encounter in a manner that is a net benefit to them (ie. Not scarred or jaded by it). Not that I'm ever having kids.
The world chews up and spits out good kids. I vowed early on that I wouldn't let anyone shit on me again and it really shaped my early life, not necessarily for the better. I overshot assertive by a decent margin.
Fortunately, I eventually settled into a healthy middle ground. I do wonder if there is a method of preparing "good kids" for the world of shit they are about to encounter in a manner that is a net benefit to them (ie. Not scarred or jaded by it). Not that I'm ever having kids.
Unfortunately, through much of school "assertive" is interpreted as "aggressive" and punished. I would classify it as assertive if a student, after raising their hand without results for a minute, said they had to go to the bathroom & then got up & went to the bathroom.
The teacher on the other hand might decide it was time for a trip to the principal's office & call home to parents because the student caused a disruption to the class by leaving without permission.
The teacher on the other hand might decide it was time for a trip to the principal's office & call home to parents because the student caused a disruption to the class by leaving without permission.
If a teacher did this to my kids I would be outraged. It's bad enough they have to wear a school uniform.
I have the same experience. I also overshot "assertive," but the alternative was that everyone would continue to steamroll me to the point of despair. Assertive wasn't enough to safeguard my dignity.
It is indeed exactly as you said. The world chewed me up for being innocent. I was routinely physically assaulted at school. These things were passed off as roughhousing or joking and the adults never intervened, and some even seemed to appreciate the "humor."
The adults rolled their eyes at me essentially for being weak, it was sort of like "sigh, what are we gonna do with that kid?" It occurs to me now that these were bitter, jaded people who hated a child for his naiveté.
If I defended myself, I was the bad guy. At some point I thought: "it doesn't make sense that I am the one who is right and that everyone else is wrong, so maybe I should be more like those guys." But then I got punished too. For example, it was considered funny for people to kick me in the balls at times. It had happened to me 10+ times and nobody got punished. Regrettably, I did it once to another kid and it was a scandal and I got punished.
I am in a healthy place now but I thank God I got through the teen and young adult years without becoming a criminal. I think I easily could have, because I came out of school a deeply damaged individual.
It is indeed exactly as you said. The world chewed me up for being innocent. I was routinely physically assaulted at school. These things were passed off as roughhousing or joking and the adults never intervened, and some even seemed to appreciate the "humor."
The adults rolled their eyes at me essentially for being weak, it was sort of like "sigh, what are we gonna do with that kid?" It occurs to me now that these were bitter, jaded people who hated a child for his naiveté.
If I defended myself, I was the bad guy. At some point I thought: "it doesn't make sense that I am the one who is right and that everyone else is wrong, so maybe I should be more like those guys." But then I got punished too. For example, it was considered funny for people to kick me in the balls at times. It had happened to me 10+ times and nobody got punished. Regrettably, I did it once to another kid and it was a scandal and I got punished.
I am in a healthy place now but I thank God I got through the teen and young adult years without becoming a criminal. I think I easily could have, because I came out of school a deeply damaged individual.
School was pretty good about letting kids go to the bathroom. I only remember one or two times that people were denied (they were misbehaving).
There was one time a kid got denied wrongfully because the teacher thought he was part of a group that was causing trouble right before that. He had a half-empty Gatorade bottle in his backpack from lunch... he was sitting in the back of class and chugged it while the teacher wasn't looking. He then refilled it with a different yellow liquid, if you know what I mean. I'm a bit surprised the teacher didn't catch him and that nobody freaked out and snitched.
There was one time a kid got denied wrongfully because the teacher thought he was part of a group that was causing trouble right before that. He had a half-empty Gatorade bottle in his backpack from lunch... he was sitting in the back of class and chugged it while the teacher wasn't looking. He then refilled it with a different yellow liquid, if you know what I mean. I'm a bit surprised the teacher didn't catch him and that nobody freaked out and snitched.
I know it is bad for kids, but it really sucked as a teacher, too.
I substitute taught for a few years after college, and you can't leave the classroom at all except during your prep period. It was really bad some days.
I substitute taught for a few years after college, and you can't leave the classroom at all except during your prep period. It was really bad some days.
I did weekend classes in elementary school which were two hours, during which our teacher would not let us go to the bathroom. Parents eventually complained and so in exchange for being able to go pee, we were no longer permitted water during the two hours.
Comments here suggest you're in the majority with your experience, though I wonder if there might be a little participation bias with regard to strong memories of such bad policies.
As a contrast, at my school the policy was far more reasonable: you still needed permission to leave, but if you didn't abuse the privilege—using it every day, or disappearing for half the lesson—the teacher wouldn't give you any grief.
As a contrast, at my school the policy was far more reasonable: you still needed permission to leave, but if you didn't abuse the privilege—using it every day, or disappearing for half the lesson—the teacher wouldn't give you any grief.
Things seem to have changes for the better since my time: How old are you? < 30? I have two kids in grammar school right now & they no longer face this same type of issue, but I also don't know if that's a local change or a more general re-think on students' biological needs.
30 on the dot, but my school was pretty liberal/progressive/what-have-you, so that may have helped. Hopefully considering those needs is more commonplace now, and folks won't have horror stories in the future.
That sounds like a very similar policy to the one the parent described. Essentially, it's up to the teacher to decide. Unless they codified what "abuse the privilege" meant, you're still at the mercy of a teacher's whims.
I'd say "judgment" rather than the significantly more loaded "whims", but you're right, the policy still relies on a human arbiter.
A codified system is bound to introduce problems: 'You get one bathroom break during class per week, and you've used yours, but this is an emergency? Sorry, I trust you, but the system says I have to give you detention if you go.'
My point was that the problem was with GP's specific (though perhaps commonplace) school culture/teachers, not the general idea of requiring permission.
A codified system is bound to introduce problems: 'You get one bathroom break during class per week, and you've used yours, but this is an emergency? Sorry, I trust you, but the system says I have to give you detention if you go.'
My point was that the problem was with GP's specific (though perhaps commonplace) school culture/teachers, not the general idea of requiring permission.
> In prison you can pretty much poop or get a drink of water whenever you want. In school you need special permission [...]
Uhm. Where in the world do you live?! :O
Uhm. Where in the world do you live?! :O
The US. It's not a very dignified setup in prison with 4 people in a cell, but most prisons have a toilet and a sink in each cell.
How can you possibly square "four people living in a cell with an open toilet" with "you can poop whenever you want"?
Is this something that is merely against prison taboos, or would agreeable people in this situation also decide, "It's better for us all to have to hold our poop 23 hours a day than to just bow to the indignity and go when we need to go?" I'm anosmic so for me it would be a no brainer that you go when you need to. The toilet's right there.
Prison food probably means you have to break the taboo some days no matter what.
Prison food probably means you have to break the taboo some days no matter what.
The US, I'd expect. It's very common here, you can generally expect kids to get a lecture, at minimum, if they leave the classroom for any reason without permission.
FWIW This was also my experience in Australia.
[deleted]
I had the same college experience. I nearly raised my hand to request permission but saw other kids just leaving class (sophomores I think)
I'm an assistant professor and every year some student will indeed ask if they can go to the bathroom...
I've been an adjunct professor and received that question too. My response is generally "You're the customer here. In my class, you can literally do anything you want if it doesn't interfere with other students learning or me teaching."
Not in the US and not a recent story, but there was a professor in my university who called out a noisy student telling him something in the like of "if you're bored with my lecture, you can do like these guys (pointing at students who were reading comics) and read in silence, or you can just leave, but can you not prevent others from listening?". The funny part is that the ones reading comics thought they were doing it unnoticed.
I might have been one of those. It took me years to fully internalize that university classes, despite superficial similarity, aren't run by high school rules.
In my experience it depended on the class.
Business school classes were very much like high school, at least the ones I took (I was not a business major). Assigned seats, attendance taken, etc. Don't recall if bathroom trips needed permission as I always handled that before class started.
Math and science classes were generally much more informal. Class met at a specified time and place, and nobody paid much attention to who was there or not. I would occasionally sit in on other classes I was considering taking, to see if I liked the instructor.
Business school classes were very much like high school, at least the ones I took (I was not a business major). Assigned seats, attendance taken, etc. Don't recall if bathroom trips needed permission as I always handled that before class started.
Math and science classes were generally much more informal. Class met at a specified time and place, and nobody paid much attention to who was there or not. I would occasionally sit in on other classes I was considering taking, to see if I liked the instructor.
> Class met at a specified time and place, and nobody paid much attention to who was there or not
At my university, attendance at lectures and tutorials was optional and no attendance was taken (for most subjects). Most people went to the lectures but attendance at tutorials was much more mixed. I tended to skip tutorials a lot.
I remember one year I promised myself "This year I'm going to turn up to everything". So I went to the first tutorial for one of my CS subjects. The tutor asked us "Is there anything you didn't understand from the lecture?" We all said "No". He said, "Then why did you bother coming to the tutorial?"
Then he told us he was trying to teach himself quantum physics as an excuse to not work on his PhD thesis. He asked us if anyone knew quantum physics. One guy in the class was a physics major and offered to give the tutor a quantum physics lesson. The rest of us just left. And the tutor would have put that down on his timesheet and got paid for it.
I didn't bother going to any more tutorials for that subject.
In hindsight, maybe I should have complained, I probably could have got that tutor in a lot of trouble. But I didn't.
At my university, attendance at lectures and tutorials was optional and no attendance was taken (for most subjects). Most people went to the lectures but attendance at tutorials was much more mixed. I tended to skip tutorials a lot.
I remember one year I promised myself "This year I'm going to turn up to everything". So I went to the first tutorial for one of my CS subjects. The tutor asked us "Is there anything you didn't understand from the lecture?" We all said "No". He said, "Then why did you bother coming to the tutorial?"
Then he told us he was trying to teach himself quantum physics as an excuse to not work on his PhD thesis. He asked us if anyone knew quantum physics. One guy in the class was a physics major and offered to give the tutor a quantum physics lesson. The rest of us just left. And the tutor would have put that down on his timesheet and got paid for it.
I didn't bother going to any more tutorials for that subject.
In hindsight, maybe I should have complained, I probably could have got that tutor in a lot of trouble. But I didn't.
> In hindsight, maybe I should have complained, I probably could have got that tutor in a lot of trouble. But I didn't.
Might be good you didn't. I obviously don't know the particulars here, but I've learned that the attitude of the university teaching staff can be confusing because of non-obvious job reasons.
At my university, there was this PhD having labs with us who I liked - she seemed one of the smarter and wiser of the people I've dealt with up to that point. A year or two after those classes, we ended up having a discussion about upcoming changes in the curriculum. I asked if she'll still be running the same labs she did with us, at which point she almost burst into tears and said something like, "oh god I hope not". I was perplexed by it, until she explained to me that she never wanted these labs, she was forced by her superiors to run them, and they are completely unrelated to the domain of her research. That insight made me understand several other cases of PhDs and professors that seemed incompetent and/or disinterested - it's not that they were bad or stupid; it's because the university mismanaged them into teaching things entirely outside their domain.
Might be good you didn't. I obviously don't know the particulars here, but I've learned that the attitude of the university teaching staff can be confusing because of non-obvious job reasons.
At my university, there was this PhD having labs with us who I liked - she seemed one of the smarter and wiser of the people I've dealt with up to that point. A year or two after those classes, we ended up having a discussion about upcoming changes in the curriculum. I asked if she'll still be running the same labs she did with us, at which point she almost burst into tears and said something like, "oh god I hope not". I was perplexed by it, until she explained to me that she never wanted these labs, she was forced by her superiors to run them, and they are completely unrelated to the domain of her research. That insight made me understand several other cases of PhDs and professors that seemed incompetent and/or disinterested - it's not that they were bad or stupid; it's because the university mismanaged them into teaching things entirely outside their domain.
I will sometimes still announce "I'm going to the bathroom" at work. Not because anyone needs to know, but because it has been so wholly ingrained. I'm just glad I don't impulsively ask for permission.
It's so weird because we go from being treated like children one year, to being treated like adults the next. There's no in-between.
In the UK in sixth form (the two years prior to university) - speaking from my own experience only of course - we would generally come and go as at university, the only difference being that the teacher might question it, (in contrast to lecturers never caring, at least not in a disciplinary or educational sense) in which case 'just going to the loo/getting a coffee miss' was fine. That's about as in between as I can imagine.
A few months ago I heard of a school in Berlin that removed toilet paper from the bathrooms and forced kids to go to the janitor to get their three sheets of toilet paper per day. And as icing on the cake the janitor didn't acknowledge that teenage girls need more paper than boys.
This story aired in TV and probably it's no longer the case. Also it likely bends the truth a bit, but nevertheless this is so unsettling and absurd that I wanted to share it.
This story aired in TV and probably it's no longer the case. Also it likely bends the truth a bit, but nevertheless this is so unsettling and absurd that I wanted to share it.
The teacher faces the same problem. Taxi/bus drivers have the same problem.
A few things:
1) Adult bladders are larger, we're more experienced in judging the severity of our needs so we're unlikely to hold it to the point of physical injury. In kids, especially when they've been trained to artificially "hold it in" by schools, they become less sensitized to their needs and can develop problems ranging from UTI's to incontinence.
2) Teachers went to the bathroom all of the time when I was in school, they'd pull the school nurse, or a secretary, or teacher's assistant from somewhere to watch the class for a few minutes.
3) Taxi drivers can stop in between trips.
4a) Bus drivers on long-hauls can stop at rest stops, and do so regularly both for themselves & their passengers.
4b) Apart from city buses, many buses (like Greyhounds) have a bathroom on board so a rest stop isn't even required, just a pull off to the side of the road & take their keys with them to the back of the bus
4c) Buses that run frequent stop local routes, There's generally a place to go at each end of the route, but there is actually employer abuse in this area with schedules so tight and penalties for running behind schedule meaning the have a place to go is only one of the concerns. Wearing adult diapers isn't uncommon, and transit unions routinely fight for bathroom rights. But this awful situation for a certain group of workers is not at all a justification for inflicting similar constraints on other people, much less children with developing bodies.
1) Adult bladders are larger, we're more experienced in judging the severity of our needs so we're unlikely to hold it to the point of physical injury. In kids, especially when they've been trained to artificially "hold it in" by schools, they become less sensitized to their needs and can develop problems ranging from UTI's to incontinence.
2) Teachers went to the bathroom all of the time when I was in school, they'd pull the school nurse, or a secretary, or teacher's assistant from somewhere to watch the class for a few minutes.
3) Taxi drivers can stop in between trips.
4a) Bus drivers on long-hauls can stop at rest stops, and do so regularly both for themselves & their passengers.
4b) Apart from city buses, many buses (like Greyhounds) have a bathroom on board so a rest stop isn't even required, just a pull off to the side of the road & take their keys with them to the back of the bus
4c) Buses that run frequent stop local routes, There's generally a place to go at each end of the route, but there is actually employer abuse in this area with schedules so tight and penalties for running behind schedule meaning the have a place to go is only one of the concerns. Wearing adult diapers isn't uncommon, and transit unions routinely fight for bathroom rights. But this awful situation for a certain group of workers is not at all a justification for inflicting similar constraints on other people, much less children with developing bodies.
I've been on a city bus several times when the driver just pulled over, turned off the engine, said "I'm going to the bathroom", entered the business he'd parked in front of, and came back after a couple of minutes. It didn't cause a problem, so municipalities who don't allow that are abusive. I'm sure that in general drivers try to keep that to a minimum.
> Seriously, it seemed like a revolutionary concept when I hit college and realized "Hold on, I can just get up & go?."
Well it’s not like you have to be there at all, so no ones going to care why you get up and leave.
Well it’s not like you have to be there at all, so no ones going to care why you get up and leave.
Little freedoms like this, and just being treated like a sane, rational human being were the difference between me doing horribly in school and not giving a shit about anything and excelling in school and loving learning. Plus, for some reason having the freedom to fail and having nobody care made an entire world of a difference for me and was the reason I grew to love academics and learning.
Prison maybe, but don’t forget about jails. I’ve visited jails in panopticon “pod” setups for 40–50-ish people bunked two-each in rooms with no bars (just a painted line dividing cells from common areas) that had a single separate common restroom/shower where each trip must be requested and approved. San Francisco’s jail is like that.
[deleted]
In the US, jury duty can have issues with bathroom rights also. In many places everything must stop when any juror is out of the room.
That's because everyone needs to be present for the evidence. It protects the accused. You can't have someone skip out on the exculpatory stuff.
It is a matter of dealing with the lowest common denominator I guess.
> meeting some mental quota the teacher has for the appropriate # of people that should have to use the toilet during a given period of time.
In grade school, every time someone asks permission to use the bathroom they stop the flow of the lesson and valuable time is lost. In college the idea is that most of the students are responsible enough to handle the bathroom and food.
In grade school, every time someone asks permission to use the bathroom they stop the flow of the lesson and valuable time is lost. In college the idea is that most of the students are responsible enough to handle the bathroom and food.
That's not a strong argument for strict bathroom rules. That's an argument for guidelines that don't require explicit permission: let kids go any time they want, and they silently signal it by holding up 2 fingers as they get up & go.
And how much valuable time is lost here, weighed against the extreme distraction a student has if they can't go? Besides, once the student has raised their hand and been called on, the flow is already disrupted. Answering "yes" or "no" is irrelevant at that point.
Do you have a proposal that both meets biological needs and doesn't run the minor risk of disruption? Disruptions occur constantly anyway every time a student asks a questions when they don't understand, even when most others do.
I simply fail to see how "stop the flow of the lesson" is either very relevant to unpreventable biological needs, or an unsolvable problem in its own right.
And how much valuable time is lost here, weighed against the extreme distraction a student has if they can't go? Besides, once the student has raised their hand and been called on, the flow is already disrupted. Answering "yes" or "no" is irrelevant at that point.
Do you have a proposal that both meets biological needs and doesn't run the minor risk of disruption? Disruptions occur constantly anyway every time a student asks a questions when they don't understand, even when most others do.
I simply fail to see how "stop the flow of the lesson" is either very relevant to unpreventable biological needs, or an unsolvable problem in its own right.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing that students shouldn't have to ask permission. It does interrupt the lesson, after all, and does very little besides reinforcing in children an obedience to authority, even above their own basic biological needs.
When I was in elementary school, we were told to try to use the bathroom after lunch, or during recess. This was teaching how to plan for what you needed to do and use the opportunities you had to get it done. You had four or five times a day when you could go to the bathroom without needing to be excused from class.
It was actually harder in high school because other than lunch, you had minimal passing time between classes (just a few minutes) so if you stopped to go to the bathroom there was a good chance you'd be late to your next class. And of course no recess. Lunch and P.E. were the two chances you had per day to use the bathroom without having to ask.
It was actually harder in high school because other than lunch, you had minimal passing time between classes (just a few minutes) so if you stopped to go to the bathroom there was a good chance you'd be late to your next class. And of course no recess. Lunch and P.E. were the two chances you had per day to use the bathroom without having to ask.
I'm all for teaching personal responsibility & planning at a very young age, but I draw the line at expecting control over autonomic functions.
It's fine to ask kids to go when there's specific opportunities, but that doesn't justify restrictive policies during other times: Tiny bladders of small children don't work that way. Especially in grade school, it doesn't need to take more than 15-20 minutes to go from "I'm fine" to "I a really need to go". Especially when bathroom privileges are rationed out & tightly controlled and you become hyper aware of your bladder state. I have my two young kids "do a try" in the bathroom before we leave the house for any car ride. That doesn't stop the occasional "I have to go!" 20 minutes into the trip. And sure enough, at the rest stop it's like my kid turned from a 6 year old into an elephant from the amount that comes out of their body.
When & how quickly you develop the need to urinate depends on a lot of factors: Your specific metabolism, recent activity, what you drank and ate, body position, and probably more. And at some point mentally, you simply pass a threshold where one minute you feel no need to go to the bathroom, and the next minute you do. If that "next minute" occurs 10 minutes after lunch break, so what? What is gained by denying that need?
It's fine to ask kids to go when there's specific opportunities, but that doesn't justify restrictive policies during other times: Tiny bladders of small children don't work that way. Especially in grade school, it doesn't need to take more than 15-20 minutes to go from "I'm fine" to "I a really need to go". Especially when bathroom privileges are rationed out & tightly controlled and you become hyper aware of your bladder state. I have my two young kids "do a try" in the bathroom before we leave the house for any car ride. That doesn't stop the occasional "I have to go!" 20 minutes into the trip. And sure enough, at the rest stop it's like my kid turned from a 6 year old into an elephant from the amount that comes out of their body.
When & how quickly you develop the need to urinate depends on a lot of factors: Your specific metabolism, recent activity, what you drank and ate, body position, and probably more. And at some point mentally, you simply pass a threshold where one minute you feel no need to go to the bathroom, and the next minute you do. If that "next minute" occurs 10 minutes after lunch break, so what? What is gained by denying that need?
I agree, and it was never an issue to go at other times you just had to ask and not bolt out of the room. It was never denied. They teachers did encourage you to take advantage of the times when you were already out of the room however.
> hope the teacher wasn't in a bad mood or that 3 other kids hadn't needed to pee in the last half hour, meeting some mental quota the teacher has for the appropriate # of people that should have to use the toilet during a given period of time.
This is a fairly reductive statement. Dealing with children is incredibly taxing and difficult. Teachers are [in my country] underpaid and under-appreciated and I believe this kind of rhetoric doesn’t do them justice. People began to appreciate teachers during the pandemic’s home schooling period, but that seems [anecdotally] to have dropped off since children have returned to regular schooling.
> when I hit college and realized "Hold on, I can just get up & go?."
Because you were [likely] an adult now who needs to be able to regulate their own behaviours. No surprise here.
This is a fairly reductive statement. Dealing with children is incredibly taxing and difficult. Teachers are [in my country] underpaid and under-appreciated and I believe this kind of rhetoric doesn’t do them justice. People began to appreciate teachers during the pandemic’s home schooling period, but that seems [anecdotally] to have dropped off since children have returned to regular schooling.
> when I hit college and realized "Hold on, I can just get up & go?."
Because you were [likely] an adult now who needs to be able to regulate their own behaviours. No surprise here.
The stress level and difficulty of teaching (while accurate statements) are not relevant to this issue. You can't excuse poor treatment of the biological needs of students simply because you have a very difficult job.
My comment was also not a reductive statement when I've been told "no" when I ask to go to the bathroom, or told "3 people have already gone to the bathroom, you'll have to wait until next period."
Both of these specific situations, and variations, happened to me. I watched a classmate pee their pants once when they were denied access to the bathroom.
Want to talk about job stress? Think about the stress an 8 year old goes through when every time they feel their bladder getting full they start worrying about whether they'll be allowed to pee, or have to wait until the next class or recess/lunch, learning nothing in the meantime and hoping they're not the next kid that has to have their parents bring a change of clothes.
I don't know what country you're in. I'm in the US, and quality of pay varies greatly from state to state. Workload (class size) often varies with the socioeconomic status of the people in that school district. What doesn't vary in any conversation I've had with people on this topic is that my experiences are very much not unique.
My comment was also not a reductive statement when I've been told "no" when I ask to go to the bathroom, or told "3 people have already gone to the bathroom, you'll have to wait until next period."
Both of these specific situations, and variations, happened to me. I watched a classmate pee their pants once when they were denied access to the bathroom.
Want to talk about job stress? Think about the stress an 8 year old goes through when every time they feel their bladder getting full they start worrying about whether they'll be allowed to pee, or have to wait until the next class or recess/lunch, learning nothing in the meantime and hoping they're not the next kid that has to have their parents bring a change of clothes.
I don't know what country you're in. I'm in the US, and quality of pay varies greatly from state to state. Workload (class size) often varies with the socioeconomic status of the people in that school district. What doesn't vary in any conversation I've had with people on this topic is that my experiences are very much not unique.
I may not have been clear with my point that my understanding of the difficulty of teaching in primary (elementary in America?) schools is the children aren’t rationale at that age.
I sympathise with your situation that a child peeing in their pants is not ok under any circumstances. My point was that’s it’s difficult, nigh impossible, to discern between a child copying another’s behaviour and a child in need. This is simply a fact of having 30+ 8 year olds acting as non-rational actors in a classroom setting. This is the point of difference to your original college statement that you could now be considered to act rationally and therefore don’t need to ask permission.
Finally regarding pay, some quick searches show the median income in America to be $60k. My point was that this is indeed undervalued in my opinion when compared to other Industries. You may disagree on that regard, but it’s my opinion understanding what I do about their expected output.
I sympathise with your situation that a child peeing in their pants is not ok under any circumstances. My point was that’s it’s difficult, nigh impossible, to discern between a child copying another’s behaviour and a child in need. This is simply a fact of having 30+ 8 year olds acting as non-rational actors in a classroom setting. This is the point of difference to your original college statement that you could now be considered to act rationally and therefore don’t need to ask permission.
Finally regarding pay, some quick searches show the median income in America to be $60k. My point was that this is indeed undervalued in my opinion when compared to other Industries. You may disagree on that regard, but it’s my opinion understanding what I do about their expected output.
> I watched a classmate pee their pants once when they were denied access to the bathroom.
I wish that had resulted in a lawsuit.
I wish that had resulted in a lawsuit.
That made me think "Yes, there should be". So I did a quick search and in fact it's not hard to find examples: https://fox5sandiego.com/news/parent-sues-school-after-child...
>People began to appreciate teachers during the pandemic’s home schooling period
People began to appreciate them for the daycare aspect and not really teaching. The statement might be reductive, but it's also the experience that many kids have with teachers and school.
People began to appreciate them for the daycare aspect and not really teaching. The statement might be reductive, but it's also the experience that many kids have with teachers and school.
The right take a toilet break anytime is a very basic human need and right. Why would anybody not extend this without question, to kids. Sure, kids at some point might take advantage, but the magic would wear off very quickly. Is like putting a button infront of someone and saying don't press it, they will really want to, and finally pressing it and being underwhelmed. Is lazy caretaking.
So children shouldn’t be allowed to use the bathroom at will because teachers are overburdened and underpaid?
> Dealing with children is incredibly taxing and difficult
No surprise it's difficult if you already sour the relationship by treating them poorly and give the kids a reason to hate you from day one. Maybe things will be better if you don't start by making up petty rules that don't help anyone?
---
In middle school I remember we had a maths teacher who was very good, in the sense that she let us do pretty much whatever we wanted as long as we weren't disrupting anyone else. This ended up working out well for both sides; those who wanted to learn and engage with the coursework could do so, and those who gave up on it and weren't interested could relax and entertain themselves to make time fly instead of being bored and dreading the class.
In comparison, we had a very severe history teacher, who'd give you spiteful extra assignments (which would escalate further if you didn't do them) if you were lacking in one way or another. Did it help? I don't think so; I remember more about dreading the class and making up excuses/strategies to get away from the class or the assignments than the content of the coursework itself, and I can say for sure that the class was universally hated and dreaded.
No surprise it's difficult if you already sour the relationship by treating them poorly and give the kids a reason to hate you from day one. Maybe things will be better if you don't start by making up petty rules that don't help anyone?
---
In middle school I remember we had a maths teacher who was very good, in the sense that she let us do pretty much whatever we wanted as long as we weren't disrupting anyone else. This ended up working out well for both sides; those who wanted to learn and engage with the coursework could do so, and those who gave up on it and weren't interested could relax and entertain themselves to make time fly instead of being bored and dreading the class.
In comparison, we had a very severe history teacher, who'd give you spiteful extra assignments (which would escalate further if you didn't do them) if you were lacking in one way or another. Did it help? I don't think so; I remember more about dreading the class and making up excuses/strategies to get away from the class or the assignments than the content of the coursework itself, and I can say for sure that the class was universally hated and dreaded.
Could easily make one of these for a lot of hospitals too.
This is fantastic. I love how if you do it long enough, the results go way down, and after a while you can no longer tell, or be certain one way or another.
This is fun, but to the extent that it's trying to make a statement†, most of the difficulty comes from the angles used in the photos. They just look like generic buildings.
You could make the same game out of "school or doctor's office" or "prison and bank" and it wouldn't be any more obvious if the photos were shot this way.
You could make the same game out of "school or doctor's office" or "prison and bank" and it wouldn't be any more obvious if the photos were shot this way.
Recently I thought about the educational structure and I wondered if we couldn't do way better.
My idea was to make it much more like how paid for classes and work are.
Instead of grades, there should be classes happening of various levels at all times. And student should be able to apply for promotions at any point, where if they pass the test, they can get promoted to the next level. Grades should be secret from one another like salaries often are, so students shouldn't feel like they compete with others, but only with themselves. And they should focus on working towards their promotions, with a 1:1 with the teacher where the teacher can tell them what they should focus on next and all to work towards their promotion.
That way everyone can go at their own pace, which can even be a pace that varies from time to time. Students don't feel a competitive pressure. You don't really have "class mates" in the sense that there's much more churn at all time of who is currently in any given lesson. And you get more personalized feedback on how to reach the next level.
Also, schools shouldn't be rated with how well their student performs, but instead by the diff of how much better the students became year over year. Like imagine a fitness studio bragging how their program makes you super fit, but they only accept people who are already super fit to join, doesn't make any sense.
My idea was to make it much more like how paid for classes and work are.
Instead of grades, there should be classes happening of various levels at all times. And student should be able to apply for promotions at any point, where if they pass the test, they can get promoted to the next level. Grades should be secret from one another like salaries often are, so students shouldn't feel like they compete with others, but only with themselves. And they should focus on working towards their promotions, with a 1:1 with the teacher where the teacher can tell them what they should focus on next and all to work towards their promotion.
That way everyone can go at their own pace, which can even be a pace that varies from time to time. Students don't feel a competitive pressure. You don't really have "class mates" in the sense that there's much more churn at all time of who is currently in any given lesson. And you get more personalized feedback on how to reach the next level.
Also, schools shouldn't be rated with how well their student performs, but instead by the diff of how much better the students became year over year. Like imagine a fitness studio bragging how their program makes you super fit, but they only accept people who are already super fit to join, doesn't make any sense.
I've been proposing this kind of system to universities for years, but they are never going to change or improve, they are permanently crippled and unable to evolve.
In China, a lot of schools in poorer areas have bars with them, which makes them look like prisons. These aren't highly competitive schools, so it doesn't make sense for the bars to be for the students. Rather they're to prevent people from breaking in and stealing the furniture.
https://img.i-scmp.com/cdn-cgi/image/fit=contain,width=1098,...
https://img.i-scmp.com/cdn-cgi/image/fit=contain,width=1098,...
This has nothing to do with school; you can barely find any low-level windows without bar in most of cities in China.
That isn’t unique to schools though. In older buildings outside of gated communities, they are extremely common in first floor and second floor apartments too.
That's a good point. It's especially noticeable with schools though because they're often isolated and completely empty very often. This makes them look especially prison-like.
I thought this was a proposal to give convicted criminals the choice between prison or school.
I think the only perceivable different is likely the size and placement of windows. Also prisons are highly unlikely to not have security bars or screens on every window (excluding a public entry foyer which is not part of the actual prison.
There's a lot less barbed wire around these prisons than I'm used to seeing.
My philosophy teacher said that both prisons and schools end up being a panopticon because you want the same in both places: maximize the feel of power of the authority, don't leave any place without surveillance,...
I have never seen a school with a literal panopticon (a tower from which everything can be seen, and which can not be seen into). So then if not a literal panopticon, a metaphorical panopticon? Doesn't mirror my school experience either. Feeling was that the teachers had no idea what was going on most of the time. But I didn't go to school in the US, maybe that's why?
High schools in the US can sometimes get very close. There are often large schools of two to three thousand students and in a country with ample access to weapons, security becomes an issue very quickly.
Both university level and lower education levels in the US will probably have large security camera systems. I know some smaller schools can't quite afford it but the medium and large state schools can.
Both university level and lower education levels in the US will probably have large security camera systems. I know some smaller schools can't quite afford it but the medium and large state schools can.
Technological panopiticons now, most doors are locked or alarmed and the remaining entrances have video surveillance. Windows even on the first floor are often limited from opening very wide. Many American schools also have a police officer on site and it’s not unusual for police to stop children outside of school grounds for truancy.
This is not very difficult. The design constraints of each are fairly unique. A few good heuristics:
- Windows: Few or many? Are they only on the top floor? Are they small? (Prisons don't have lots of windows.)
- Bars on windows? (Dead giveaway for a prison.)
- Lots of security cameras? (Not the best indicator, but it weights in favor of prison.)
- Fences around parking lots? (Criminals might want to break into cars.)
- Is the name on the building large, inviting, and stylish? (School.)
I think the message being sent is more interesting than the "game".
- Windows: Few or many? Are they only on the top floor? Are they small? (Prisons don't have lots of windows.)
- Bars on windows? (Dead giveaway for a prison.)
- Lots of security cameras? (Not the best indicator, but it weights in favor of prison.)
- Fences around parking lots? (Criminals might want to break into cars.)
- Is the name on the building large, inviting, and stylish? (School.)
I think the message being sent is more interesting than the "game".
I wrote an essay for an English creative writing lesson comparing our school with prison. It led to a detention where I was asked to rewrite it...
You may like Peter Gray’s article on the subject: [1]
If you are more curious, I would also suggest his book titled “Free to Learn”
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/200909...
If you are more curious, I would also suggest his book titled “Free to Learn”
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/200909...
> common etiquette even allowed for a bit of food if it wasn't noisy to eat or have a powerful smell
And then you graduated, started catching the train to your new job, discovered that many people do not reciprocate this standard, and there's split drink, empty bottles, and undesirable aromatics on every train.
And then you graduated, started catching the train to your new job, discovered that many people do not reciprocate this standard, and there's split drink, empty bottles, and undesirable aromatics on every train.
I didn’t do so good here. 4 out of 10.
Schools really should be given a makeover. They do look too much like prison. But what, round corners? I dunno. I guess they’d look too much like giant iPhones.
Unrelated but in case the simulation changes theme to “post-apocalypse”, what’s better to use as HQ: the school or the prison?
Schools really should be given a makeover. They do look too much like prison. But what, round corners? I dunno. I guess they’d look too much like giant iPhones.
Unrelated but in case the simulation changes theme to “post-apocalypse”, what’s better to use as HQ: the school or the prison?
I just played and got 10/10 right although a few were difficult. I don’t think they are all so similar.
The secret is windows.
So...government architecture is hard to place? I feel like this is meant as a commentary on the culture of schools but the outside of the building has nothing to do with the inside and is just designed by the lowest bidder to look fairly generically “place”
https://res.cloudinary.com/schoolprison/10_wwfagw.jpg
You can read “学校” on this building, making it a bit easier than it should be. :)
You can read “学校” on this building, making it a bit easier than it should be. :)
This test biased toward the western building culture of school and prison. As a Japanese, I'm clueless on most buildings save for one image that was of Japanese high school and it literally says high school in Japanese.
my biggest complaint about schools at least in the US is they all are specially designed. they usually have an architect involved. it’s style is specific to the land it’s on. and each one is so expensive to build. then the community can show off its fancy school, great, it’s a snowflake
i would rather the state appoint an architect group to design like 5 model schools that are modular. and then any time a city needs to build one you just get to play some lego on the modular design. this would make school construction faster and cheaper and maintenance easier
i would rather the state appoint an architect group to design like 5 model schools that are modular. and then any time a city needs to build one you just get to play some lego on the modular design. this would make school construction faster and cheaper and maintenance easier
A modular design might work if you're starting from a blank slate, and had relatively few variables to account for. But this is rarely the case, even in new construction on a vacant lot.
Land isn't uniform, lots have shapes, roads already exist, utilities have to be connected, local construction requirements vary, existing structures have to be accounted for. You're likely not going to save money by forcing everyone to use the same 5 designs because that will just shift inefficiencies elsewhere -- where they're even more expensive. Unnecessarily moving earth or buying more property to fit the 5 mandatory designs is going to be way more expensive than simply building the structure to fit existing limitations.
Land isn't uniform, lots have shapes, roads already exist, utilities have to be connected, local construction requirements vary, existing structures have to be accounted for. You're likely not going to save money by forcing everyone to use the same 5 designs because that will just shift inefficiencies elsewhere -- where they're even more expensive. Unnecessarily moving earth or buying more property to fit the 5 mandatory designs is going to be way more expensive than simply building the structure to fit existing limitations.
Schools are one of the most universal community hubs that the largest majority of a community will interact with regularly. No one wants a cookie cutter community center.
> No one wants a cookie cutter community center.
The specific point of the parent comment is that they do want a cookie cutter school. Saying "no one wants that" isn't really a substantial counter argument.
I suppose the problem with them all being so similar would be if you spent every day visiting a different one, you would tire of them all being them same. But no one does that - you spend many years in a single one, without much awareness of others. In the end it's important that it's effective to spend long periods in, and its uniqueness is basically irrelevant to the people that actually use it.
The specific point of the parent comment is that they do want a cookie cutter school. Saying "no one wants that" isn't really a substantial counter argument.
I suppose the problem with them all being so similar would be if you spent every day visiting a different one, you would tire of them all being them same. But no one does that - you spend many years in a single one, without much awareness of others. In the end it's important that it's effective to spend long periods in, and its uniqueness is basically irrelevant to the people that actually use it.
The problem with them all being similar is that would mean they don't reflect their inhabitants. The same as no two rivers flow the same, no two schools work the same. They nominally accomplish the same task in similar ways but will have a fingerprint in how its done. There's a degree of practicality that comes with a school that can be met with common resources, but it's still apparent communities don't want modular schools (regardless of individual opinions).
There's a long list of reasons schools aren't just a cleared field with a bunch of mobile-unit classrooms thrown out there despite that being the most cost-effective way to house classes.
There's a long list of reasons schools aren't just a cleared field with a bunch of mobile-unit classrooms thrown out there despite that being the most cost-effective way to house classes.
The prisons seem to have nicer outdoor grounds and recreation areas.
Prisoners appreciate those areas more because they don't have access to them in any other context.
By comparison, in the army during initial training I had flashbacks of kindergarten. We weren't herded that much at school. Also the food was for some reason very similar.
[deleted]
I would take out or obscure the ones that have names in a non-English language. I was able to guess two knowing a little German and Japanese.
There was a myth going around my university that the dorm blueprints used were repurposed prison designs. Never bothered to investigate.
Unless you had an open toilet between your beds, seems unlikely.
I got 9/10. Not so hard. If the point was that they look indistinguishable, then the point was not made convincingly.
One of the high schools where I grew up was rumored to be designed by a prison designer.
I think this just shows that prisons often have nicer facades than some schools.
I thought an obvious clue would be Windows or no Windows. I’m wrong.
A good heuristic:
If it has a ton of windows, it aint a school
If it has a ton of windows, it aint a school
I only got a 700. My school was rumored to by designed by prison architects, so maybe that's why.
Can I flag the whole thread as off-topic? Geez, HN.
Can I flag the whole thread as off-topic? Geez, HN.
It was easy to get 10/10.
Too easy
Are we slave labor for ML data?
So done with school
What's the point of this? Schools and prisons are both buildings.
Just a cool service
Public school is a prison where both parents can abandon their children to be raised by strangers while the parents chase what they really love: money. We make ourselves feel better by teaching them a few worthwhile things during their minimum 13 years in lockdown, coupled with a massive public jobs program, but most of it is a waste of precious family time where parents should be teaching and loving their own children.
This is a good example of a phenomenon I see where this site in particular often seems to have an antipathy towards “public school” that’s wildly foreign to me, as someone who had a pretty bog-standard, middle-of-the-road public education in Scotland.
I sometimes wonder if it’s down to a fundamentally different experience at schools in the US that I’m not aware of?
I feel like I went in one end of the school system, and then came out twelve years later able to read, write, play musical instruments, understand the natural world, think critically, use a computer, and generally having a wide variety of other skills. Teaching quality was mostly fine, with staff who seemed to be pretty engaged. I spent plenty of time outside school with both parents, and I came out with a bunch of skills and knowledge that neither of them would have been able to teach me. My experience was far from perfect, but it was a million miles away from being “a prison”.
The “school is a waste of time” argument seems to be popular in these circles. Is it down to cultural differences? Or maybe it’s just the iceberg tip of a deeper and more earnestly held view about a fundamental restructuring of society and childhood?
I sometimes wonder if it’s down to a fundamentally different experience at schools in the US that I’m not aware of?
I feel like I went in one end of the school system, and then came out twelve years later able to read, write, play musical instruments, understand the natural world, think critically, use a computer, and generally having a wide variety of other skills. Teaching quality was mostly fine, with staff who seemed to be pretty engaged. I spent plenty of time outside school with both parents, and I came out with a bunch of skills and knowledge that neither of them would have been able to teach me. My experience was far from perfect, but it was a million miles away from being “a prison”.
The “school is a waste of time” argument seems to be popular in these circles. Is it down to cultural differences? Or maybe it’s just the iceberg tip of a deeper and more earnestly held view about a fundamental restructuring of society and childhood?
Autodidacts who thought school got in the way of their learning and never really got on with most of the other kids their age are overrepresented on HN, and a lot of people not in that category don't have particularly strong opinions about schools...
I think that some of it is due to distaste towards women who are not start at home. There is extraordinary guilting going on here, I mean moms when they argue this particular point are guilting less.
For what it is worth, pandemic made me appreciate teachers more. Pandemic made my kids appreciate school more (and they explicitly stated multiple points where school is better then what went on at home).
For what it is worth, pandemic made me appreciate teachers more. Pandemic made my kids appreciate school more (and they explicitly stated multiple points where school is better then what went on at home).
True, if by money, you mean enough wages to get food, clothing, and shelter. If people really loved money, you might expect a positive savings rate...
Agree that applies for the majority of people, but for others it's purely a status competition beyond what they currently have which they've decided to engage in.
> what they really love: money
Money is just a currency. What they really love (and need), is all the goods and services that can be purchased by money, which include the things that keep their children and themselves alive.
Money is just a currency. What they really love (and need), is all the goods and services that can be purchased by money, which include the things that keep their children and themselves alive.
Small but important note: they're only strangers if you want them to be.
Thank you for reminding me to call my fantastic parents and tell them that I love them.
UBI and competition between schools can fix all that.
But naked capitalism tells women to "lean in and earn $1 for every 70 cents" instead of telling men to "lean out and earn 70c for every $1" ...and spend more time with your children, family, contributing to open source software, learning science, an instrument, hobbies, sports and exercise and doing other things not valued by the market.
UBI is far superior to both a jobs guarantee, minimum wage laws and unions in rebalancing the power dynamic between the employees and employers.
Instead, today, we are brainwashed that your worth as an individual comes from working for a corporation, and the schools train the kids to sit down and shut up for 10 hours day to do just that. Look at Finland. Or http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=158
But naked capitalism tells women to "lean in and earn $1 for every 70 cents" instead of telling men to "lean out and earn 70c for every $1" ...and spend more time with your children, family, contributing to open source software, learning science, an instrument, hobbies, sports and exercise and doing other things not valued by the market.
UBI is far superior to both a jobs guarantee, minimum wage laws and unions in rebalancing the power dynamic between the employees and employers.
Instead, today, we are brainwashed that your worth as an individual comes from working for a corporation, and the schools train the kids to sit down and shut up for 10 hours day to do just that. Look at Finland. Or http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=158
We teach children how to do paperwork starting at age 5. How necessary is that?
I'd argue that's a pretty essential skill in the modern world. Reading and writing are arguably the two of the most important skills we can learn since from them you can eventually do anything else.
Paperwork specifically is also pretty important. Sure you could argue that they could postpone teaching that until later but teaching how to fill out paperwork is basically just teaching how to do homework which will be essential for teaching mathematics at any reasonable scale.
Of course now things are digital but it's still the same skills but in a different shade.
Paperwork specifically is also pretty important. Sure you could argue that they could postpone teaching that until later but teaching how to fill out paperwork is basically just teaching how to do homework which will be essential for teaching mathematics at any reasonable scale.
Of course now things are digital but it's still the same skills but in a different shade.
I wish I had been taught paperwork or actual practical life skills (filing taxes for example) as opposed to some complex mathematical operations that I don't even remember anymore.
When I bounced around cities later in life, I was surprised at how many of my peers said the same thing as a conversation piece.
Maybe they used the same governmental bidding process. "Needed: a building. One food preparation and eating area. Hallways suitable for lining up and proceeding in rows with many small rooms. One yard with sporting facilities."