volver
^Schools used to teach these things so yes, why not!^
Nobody answered my post about Eton, so I'll rephrase it.
For me how to learn how to cook pate sucre or decorate the living room would have meant taking time away from actually learning academic things. Like it or not, we need people who are good at learning academic things. So how do we decide who needs to learn to change a plug and who needs to know exactly how the electricity is generated in the first place?
Do we just have to learn cooking and budgeting if we are in a school where it is deemed unlikely that we will ever have to know how to speak Mandarin?
BTW I can change a plug.
I don’t like the idea of schools as simply fitting people for work. IMO all of them, from Eton to Bash Street, should prepare people for life. Whether that’s cooking, plug changing, poetry appreciation or playing an instrument, I think that all young people should be taught things that have the potential to enrich their lives. Not as paid-for extras, but as part of their education.
I find it sad when people say that there is ‘no point’ in learning things that don’t lead directly into jobs. I understand it, but think it’s a narrow view of what education should be about.
I also think that learning things in the abstract is less useful than a more holistic approach, and that at a younger age at least, broad-based projects would stick in the mind more than ‘chopping skills’ or disembodied maths. Chopping veg to make a pie that is part of a lesson on ratios or fractions, on the lines of ‘if each tray of pies takes 12 carrots, and there are four pies per tray, and each pie serves four children, how many carrots does each child get? There are three times more peas than carrots. How many peas are in a pie, and in a portion of pie?’ will be better remembered than separate lessons that have no immediate application.