We might still need a few doctors and architects — Vera Mont

In practice, there are no "architects". In practice, there are only users of architect software. So, either you build the machine, or else you use the machine, because in all other cases, you are trying to be the machine. The last bit, is what architects learn at university. Employers want users with years of experience with the software that they happen to use, while the people who graduate from universities are trying themselves to be the software. That is why they are unemployed when they graduate.

Concerning doctors, the entire medical industry is actually a gigantic scam. Quite a few people became more aware of that during the past scamdemic. Doctors do not learn at university what to prescribe to the patients. They learn that from the pharmaceutical mafia. It is one of the most regulated professions and therefore the profession that tops the list in terms of mafia behavior. If things go on like this, they will manage to bankrupt every modern western country -- if something else does not bankrupt them first. (There is a long list of situations that are busy bankrupting the West, such as the banking system, and so on).

Good. So that's where all the 14-year-olds should be going when they drop out of school. — Vera Mont

I can only talk from my own experience. It is just one example of how things work in practice. The labor market consists of an almost infinite myriad of different jobs, of which I only know 0.1%.

Personally, I did not learn anything in school between the ages of 14 and 18 that was later on helpful in any way. In fact, I did not learn anything at university either that turned out to be useful. I guess that 14-year-olds instinctively sense this.

Therefore, I can understand why a 14-year-old feels like dropping out. In fact, dropping out is actually not the problem. The real problem is that they need to do something else instead. Something that does make sense.

That is where the system fails, and by design so.

With all the child labor laws, it is illegal to hire a 14-year-old. So, he cannot become an apprentice with someone who can teach him something useful. Society has simply outlawed the solution. The government does not solve problems. Instead, the government pretty much always makes the problem unsolvable.

Before around 1850 (before the school system was introduced), there were no "drop outs". There were no demotivated youngsters who felt useless and lost. At the age of 12, you could join the crew of a sail ship and travel the world. Look for example at the fifth officer of the Titanic, Harold Lowe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lowe

Harold Lowe was born in Llanrhos, Caernarvonshire, Wales, on 21 November 1882, the fourth of eight children, born to George Edward Lowe and Emma Harriette Quick. His father had ambitions for him to be apprenticed to a successful Liverpool businessman, but Harold Lowe was determined to go to sea. At 14, he ran away from his home in Barmouth where he had attended school and joined the Merchant Navy, serving along the West African Coast. Lowe started as a ship's boy aboard the Welsh coastal schooners as he worked to attain his certifications. In 1906, he passed his certification and gained his second mate's certificate, then in 1908, he attained his first mate's certificate.

This system worked much better. Today, Harold Lowe would be a directionless dropout because nowadays nobody can take him on as an apprentice.

The current system is objectively worse than what they had back then.

Education is an attempt to teach students the basics of how things work — Igitur

No, it doesn't. For example, if you want to figure out how to write a mobile app, no school will ever help you. I don't say that anybody should learn this, though. But then again, take whatever real-life example of how something works, and you will quickly understand that the school is totally ignorant of how it works. So, how can they teach it?

You can’t have a specialized path for every student — Igitur

Not true. You definitely can.

For example, the best way to get into software engineering, is to do a 3-month bootcamp. There is no need for 6 years like in high school. I would say that the only way to get people started in their career is a specialized path for every student. It is possible and it is being done already.

It takes two months to train a truck driver and to get the license, if that is what the student wants to do.

It’s hard to know what a person will do, and you can’t have everyone decide at an early age, when education starts. — Igitur

Well, he still has to start somewhere. Not having any starting point at all, is not the solution either.

Therefore, it’s necessary to teach a baseline in many topics and then later allow options for specialized learning. — Igitur

Not true. Baseline generalities do not prepare for anything at all. We already know that. That is why youth unemployment is a reality nowadays.

Current education does this fine. — Igitur

No, current education is pretty much a complete failure. I am surprised that any graduate finds any job at all. If it goes on like this, they will all end up slinging coffee at Starbucks. That is the true career for which they are being prepared.

the knowledge of basic math must be taught — Igitur

No, because Starbucks et alii do not require it. The cash till can perfectly handle all arithmetic. The cash till is a computer. Starbucks will not allow its staff to do any math. Again, either you build the machine, or else you use the machine, because in all other cases, you are trying to be the machine.

Pretty soon, with increasing automation, there won't be (m)any jobs for adults, either. The 'modern world' is a fragile and volatile thing. Why assume it will continue as it is? — Vera Mont

After a few decades of making money by writing software, I can guarantee to you that the claim that "AI will replace all jobs" is complete bullshit. I really don't know why the mainstream media are pushing that stupid narrative. Maybe because some people will believe it anyway?

Actually, I usually do understand why the media push a particular bullshit narrative. There are so many, and their motivation is usually very transparent. In the case of the AI nonsense, however, I do not even see what they are trying to achieve by making people believe it !?

If you are competing for a job with another person, and the other person isn't an HS graduate and you are, isn't that going to be a significant advantage for you? — RogueAI

Only if that is the only requirement (which it never is because a HS diploma does not reflect any ability to solve any particular problem). Ok, let's take an example and let's look at the following job:

https://www.indeed.com/q-react-js-jobs.html?vjk=5d7f26153585e268

REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE & SKILL SETS

5+ years of experience in Software Programming or Engineering
Proficient with software programming languages such as JavaScript, Java, Python, C++, or Node.js
Experience with full stack development, deployment, and support of web and mobile applications
Experienced with native, react native, hybrid, PWA, and/or mobile-responsive apps
Experienced with development and implementation of APIs, microservice contracts, data structures and interfaces, along with other relevant tools and technologies
Knowledge of Jira, Confluence, and other ALM tools
Comfort and confident in ambiguity, is resourceful, and willing to problem solve around the ‘how’ of execution work
Understanding of how to deliver work iteratively and push goals to the finish line using agile methodologies
Works collaboratively across internal and external product, design, development and QA teams

EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE

Bachelor's degree (B.A. or B.S.) in IT, Software Engineering, Computer Science, or related fields preferred; and/or 5 years related experience in demonstrated mobile application, web application and/or software development.

First remark: you don't learn any of the following in high school:

- development and implementation of APIs, microservice contracts, data structures and interfaces, along with other relevant tools and technologies
- native, react native, hybrid, PWA, and/or mobile-responsive apps
- development and implementation of APIs, microservice contracts, data structures and interfaces, along with other relevant tools and technologies

You do not even learn this at university. Universities don't teach it. They would not even be able to teach it. So, a candidate can have a masters degree from MIT or Stanford or even a Ph.D, but he will still not qualify for the job. Seriously, this company won't hire that candidate. Hence, you won't be competing with any graduate from any level, because they are simply not qualified for the job.

So, how do you learn it?

Well, I always had to learn this kind of things by googling for something like "tutorial react native", and then start from there. I've had to do that a lot of times in my career.

The people who would compete with someone like me for this job, are people who have used these technologies in their previous job. They actually stand a much better chance at getting the job, but they are probably not applying for the job, because they get called by recruitment companies who offer them jobs, just like they used to call me when I was still working. So, they do not have to look for jobs. So, they are unlikely to apply.

Does this employer really care about your university degree? Probably not. Almost surely not.

I have a degree, but nobody has ever asked me about it. I am semi-retired now. So, nowadays I don't need to deal with this kind of things anymore, but I can guarantee to you that you are better off with a 3-month bootcamp in "react native" than with a Ph.D in computer science:

https://www.udemy.com/course/complete-react-native-mobile-development-zero-to-mastery-with-hooks/

Complete React Native Bootcamp (with Hooks) Master React Native for iOS and Android Mobile App Development using JavaScript. Build a modern e-commerce mobile app!

So, no, in my experience, having a high school degree won't make any difference. You are not competing on that basis. You really don't need one. You are competing in the area of having practical hands-on experience in a subject that no school has ever taught or will ever teach.

By the way, "react native" may be popular today, but I can guarantee that a few years from now, it will be something else.

there's been a shift towards conceptually understanding of math concepts, instead of just rote memorization. — RogueAI

What strikes me, is that they still test students while imposing the following conditions:

- you cannot use a calculator
- you cannot use your books
- you cannot use google search

Students learn exactly the opposite of what makes you productive in a professional environment.

If you can find a solution by using a piece of software (such as a calculator) or by using a search engine, but you don't, you are considered to be highly unproductive. You won't be able to compete with people who are good at doing exactly the opposite.

In that sense, schools mostly teach students how to be unproductive in a professional environment. The students do not learn concepts, especially not the concept of doing whatever it reasonably takes to figure out the solution, because in fact, this is not allowed.

But then again, if the students are simply allowed to use a tool such as wolfram alpha, then it would become patently clear that they are not learning concepts at all. They are in fact not learning anything that a machine cannot do better than them. On the contrary, all they are learning is to try to be the machine, but miserably fail. That is the main reason why a high school diploma is completely worthless in the labor market. University degrees are rapidly going in the same direction, for exactly the same reasons.

Okay. Let's dispense with education altogether and puts kids right to work on real-life problems as soon as they turn six. — Vera Mont

They used to start working at around fourteen.

Back then, there was no problem of youth unemployment. Employers were perfectly fine to hire apprentices. Nowadays, it is illegal. Around the globe, child labor laws prevent teenagers from working. It proves again that there is no problem in the world that the government won't make worse.

If someone is interested in academic subjects, he will undoubtedly find his way to youtube and start viewing introductory material. If they are not interested, then why would they have to learn it?

There are not that many jobs in the modern world that are suitable for children between six and fourteen. In the past, they could help out with subsistence farming, but that option is not available for most families. But then again, even today there are still lots of jobs could be done by a fourteen-year old.

Everybody will automatically learn how to use the simplest version of the computer, which is the mobile phone. In fact, children learn by themselves how to use it, long before they graduate from primary school. That is also how most jobs will end up using computers (by using apps on a mobile phone).

Trains the mind in the significance, functions and manipulation of numbers, of quantitative relationships and proportions. — Vera Mont

Learning to formalize a real-world problem into a mathematical model is indeed more meaningful. Next, you can give it to a computation engine to solve. However, that is not mathematics. That is an activity downstream from mathematics. As soon as the problem has any real-world semantics, it is not mathematics but something else:

In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the view that holds that statements of mathematics and logic can be considered to be statements about the consequences of the manipulation of strings (alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as equations) using established manipulation rules. A central idea of formalism "is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality.

According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all. — Mathematical formalism

There is nothing wrong with training people in using a spreadsheet or other computation engines. However, that is not an exercise in mathematics in any shape or fashion. It could be one in accounting, or engineering, or any other downstream discipline, but not one in mathematics.

In fact, you do not learn to use mathematics by studying mathematics. You must learn that elsewhere.

It's not the memorizing that matters; it's the understanding of how they were derived and why they are valid. — Vera Mont

And this is tested by the education system by asking the student to repeat the proof from memory. That does not require understanding. That merely requires rote memorization.

While everyone needs arithmetic to navigate life successfully, few people need mathematics. But they won't know who they are until after they're introduced to the concepts. — Vera Mont

They won't know who they are until they are confronted with a real-life problem that they need to solve and that requires them. Hence, only exposure to real-life problems will make people learn what they need. Therefore, the legitimate starting point is not the concepts or the tools. The legitimate starting point is a problem that you need to solve. no matter what. Next, you try to figure out what concepts and tools could help you doing that. It is of no use to learn concepts or tools unless you are going to actually use them. This can only be guaranteed when you start from the problem to solve and not from arbitrary tools that could possible be useful in solving some future nondescript problem.

Therefore, every secondary school students should be given a basic education in maths and science. — Vera Mont

I don't think so. In practice, it merely leads to memorizing concepts that the student will never use. In my opinion, it is a waste of time. If you some day you really need it, you can learn it then and there. Employers do not value it either. If they did, youth unemployment would not be a thing.

This waste of time is not without consequences. Around the globe, hundreds of millions of young people graduate from secondary schools every year. There is no job that they will be hired for that requires anything they have learned in high school. Starbucks will hire them, but they will also happily hire someone who did not graduate from high school at all. For most of them, it would even be better to get something like a truck driving license instead of a high school diploma, which only takes a month or two, instead of six years. Still, they will much more easily find a job and make a much better living that their high-school peers.

Learning something that you may possibly some day need, has turned out to be a losing strategy. Instead, get straight into a professional environment, and try to solve the problem at hand. Only then, learn what you need to solve it.

Socialism, i.e. collective ownership of the means of production, is merely an instrument. You would still need to determine what the goal is.

Furthermore, mere government ownership of the economy does in itself not guarantee that everyone has an income. It only guarantees that customers have nowhere else to go, if they don't like existing supply.

There are many forms of socialism:

Marxist socialism (internationalist goals), National socialism (racial goals), Trade-union socialism (better known as fascism), social democracy (which is rather a form of capitalism).

You would still need to figure out a way to get people to work in the context of universal basic income. Most people only work because they have to. Without a production of goods and services to buy, money is essentially worthless.

Housing cost would also be even more inflationary than today. Renters would use their universal basic income to outbid each other. So, the money would probably largely end up in the pockets of landlords. It would also have a strong pull effect on illegal immigration.

Universal basic income is so inflationary that it won't be able to cover the cost of living.

I would like to ask the interlocuter, what role does education have in society and perhaps more importantly in our daily lives? — Shawn

A first issue is that there is no problem in the world that the government won't make worse.

Education has largely stopped teaching and has switched to mostly indoctrinating.

Just like the true purpose of education in the Soviet Union was to firmly stomp the manifesto of the communist party into the minds of young impressionable children, nowadays, education in the West has its own not-so-hidden woke agenda.

The education system is based on the false idea that society has the right to impose its views -- no matter how misguided -- onto someone else's children. The most visible second-order consequence of that approach is that fewer and fewer people actually want children. The education system is indeed self-defeating. The longer the system lasts, the more destructive the effect that it has on the nuclear family, on the social fabric, on society, and therefore the stronger the tendency for society to collapse.

There is obviously no need to do anything about a problem that is clearly solving itself. I have children but not in the West. Therefore, my own recommendation is to let it rot.

There are many different, incompatible, mathematical systems. — Michael

Could you give me an example of two incompatible mathematical systems? There is a lot of research in inconsistent mathematics, but I am not sure that this is what you mean?

However, the structure is useless without rules of application, so we proceed toward axioms of geometry, and rules of categorizing, to provide rules of application. The rules of application are still a part of the formal system, and there is no proper "formalist" separation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Classical Euclidean geometry is arguable not "real" mathematics. As Kant pointed out, it is incredibly married to sensory input, to the point that it is not pure reason. The truly mathematical version of geometry, is algebraic geometry. It revolves exclusively around dealing the roots of multivariate polynomials, which is entirely about string manipulation and does not require any visual input. The fact that Euclidean geometry has too much meaning and does not fit the formalist narrative, points out a problem with Euclidean geometry and not with the formalist ontology. If it is not possible to interpret it as meaningless string manipulation, then it is not real mathematics.

In no way can mathematics completely escape application, without it becoming something other (a useless bunch of symbols) than mathematics. So the inverse of your statement is actually the truth. With absolutely no application, mathematics would be absolutely nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is exactly the essence of the formalist view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formalism_(philosophy_of_mathematics)

In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the view that holds that statements of mathematics and logic can be considered to be statements about the consequences of the manipulation of strings (alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as equations) using established manipulation rules. A central idea of formalism "is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality.

According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.

In its anti-realist take, mathematics is indeed "about nothing". In its realist take, mathematics is about an abstract, Platonic universe that is completely divorced from the physical universe. In both cases, any downstream application of mathematics is completely irrelevant to mathematics itself. That is a feature and not a bug.

Correct. Kurt Godel said yes. David Hilbert said no. They both have arguments that are equally convincing. I consider the problem to be undecidable.

Applied mathematics is actually not mathematics.

As soon as it is about correspondence with the physical universe, it is about the use of mathematical language and other notions in physics, chemistry, engineering, or something else, in order to maintain consistency in the ideas being expressed.

Mathematics proper seeks to establish the correspondence between an abstraction and a Platonic universe -- when interpreted according to realism -- or between an abstraction and another abstraction -- when interpreted according to anti-realism. Mathematics proper is never about the physical universe.

In fact, I have also come to accept the alternative formalist view.

Since N can also be described as a set-theoretical construct, it is just another symbolic abstraction.

Let's not be mistaken. The Platonic ontology is very attractive. However, there is also no denying the formalist ontology: in the end, it is also just string manipulation. You do not need to see more in it. That is not mandatory at all.

So, if you want to accept N as a mathematically realist Platonic abstraction, it works. However, I have no counterargument to the idea that N can also be viewed as just abstract nonsense. I have no other choice than to accept that viewpoint as equally legitimate.

PA does not define N.

N is defined as a set-theoretical construct while PA is an axiomatic theory constructed as such that all its theorems turn out to be true in N but also in somewhat similar nonstandard models.

Actually, I have to agree to that.

Formalism is a very consistent idea.

Model theory can indeed be viewed as the correspondence between an axiomatic fiction and a set-theoretical one.

No matter how compelling the Platonic view, the formalist view always seems to be able to match and counter it.

While category theory is indeed "general abstract nonsense", model theory is the correspondence between two general forms of abstract nonsense.

Ok, I think that I finally have learned my lesson now. I will never try to defeat formalism again. Seriously, this was my last attempt.

I certainly do not believe that mathematics revolves around the correspondence with the physical universe. By "correspondentist", I actually mean: correspondence with a particular designated preexisting abstract Platonic world, such as the natural numbers.

Mathematical realism is about the independent existence of such Platonic universes.

If these Platonic universes do not even exist, why try to investigate the correspondence with a particular theory? It only makes sense if they do exist, independent of mathematics or any other theory.

Model theory truly believes that the natural numbers exist independently from mathematics or any of its theories.

Look for example at the relationship between Peano Arithmetic theory (PA) and the natural numbers (N).

PA does not create N.

N exists independently from PA. In model theory, PA is merely deemed to correctly describe N, while N is deemed to interpret PA.

So, N is a preexisting abstraction. The truth about N, called "true arithmetic", is also deemed to exist independently of any mathematical theory.

How else would you understand this approach, besides "correspondentist"?