What's the most important subject taught in school?

[Puupi]

Reading and writing on the early grades, then maths by far.

[Teleros]

For other people, science. No one gives a shit how great your maths skills are if you think vaccines give you super coronaids ebola t virus from hell and you'd rather wither away and die to some preventable disease than risk getting the g virus injected into you.

That's not teaching science though, that's teaching... well, dogma, frankly. Now, before you jump on me, I'm not saying it's a false dogma, but "vaccines provide immunity because your body remembers fighting the weakened form of the disease in the vaccine" (which, to the best of my knowledge, is correct) has sod all to do with the practice of science. You're not discovering it in class or testing hypotheses or anything, you're just being told XYZ by an authority figure with his props (textbooks etc) and internalising it as true, because again, the authority figure said so.

I agree it's probably a good idea that people leave school with a good idea of how science is supposed to work though. "Hmm, this sensational press release says XYZ, but it's only been peer reviewed, not replicated by other teams yet, and I know how serious the replicability crisis is from school..." I mean, it'd be good to get people able to respond more like that when the {tabloid of your choice} splashes some daft, headline-grabbing "science" article all over the front page.

[Sliske]

That's not teaching science though, that's teaching... well, dogma, frankly. Now, before you jump on me, I'm not saying it's a false dogma, but "vaccines provide immunity because your body remembers fighting the weakened form of the disease in the vaccine" (which, to the best of my knowledge, is correct) has sod all to do with the practice of science. You're not discovering it in class or testing hypotheses or anything, you're just being told XYZ by an authority figure with his props (textbooks etc) and internalising it as true, because again, the authority figure said so.

This can be said of anything though? There is a difference between teaching people the earth is flat and teaching people that fire is warm. One of these has been studied well and understood and been proven by scientists. The whole point of science class isn't to be on the cutting edge, discovering new shit, its to teach you known facts related to science, as well teach you HOW they did it.

How do we know vaccines work? Because a bunch of scientists tested it on animals, then tested on humans, then gave it to most humans, and what do you know, some diseases are now so rare that they *only* appear when you don't have vaccines.

I do not buy the "we're just believing the teacher on faith" argument. Does that mean there aren't terrible teachers that teach really dumb shit that has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with opinion and politics? Sure. But thankfully most of those aren't in the sciences, they're in social studies, which is why all the lefty lunatics you see these days aren't produced by physics classes, but rather gender studies classes.

Another point is, schools aren't like North Korea or something. If a teacher tells you something like, i don't know, 1 ton of feathers is the same as 1 ton of bricks, he'll probably go ahead and explain it to you. Thats what i did anyway. If i had a question or a doubt, i asked and was given an answer.

[Unholyground]

Aside from Business Studies doesn't Home Economics cover that?

Most laces do not have that anymore either.

[Teleros]

This can be said of anything though?

Sure, but science is supposed to be about testing stuff, not just absorbing facts.

There is a difference between teaching people the earth is flat and teaching people that fire is warm. One of these has been studied well and understood and been proven by scientists. The whole point of science class isn't to be on the cutting edge, discovering new shit, its to teach you known facts related to science, as well teach you HOW they did it.

Right, good - that's what you should be doing in science classes.

Teacher: Is the Earth flat or a globe?
Class: Uh... *looks at model globe* a globe?
T: Okay, why?
C: Dunno.
T: Well, let's work it out. Test hypotheses and do experiments and figure out the truth.

Point is, if you want your pupils to really grok science, they must be taught not to take scientific statements etc on faith but to rigorously test them. The "on faith" stuff can be left to memorising French vocab or w/e .

How do we know vaccines work? Because a bunch of scientists tested it on animals, then tested on humans, then gave it to most humans, and what do you know, some diseases are now so rare that they *only* appear when you don't have vaccines.

That's actually a bad example, because the rise of vaccination coincided with a bunch of related stuff like keeping hospitals cleaned properly, so it could be correlation rather than causation.

I do not buy the "we're just believing the teacher on faith" argument. Does that mean there aren't terrible teachers that teach really dumb shit that has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with opinion and politics? Sure.

Children do tend to believe what they're told though, especially if it's by an authority figure. Obviously, there are plenty of downright awful teachers, but on the whole they do. After all, it worked for learning to speak, read, write & do basic maths, so why would my teacher be wrong about ~whatever~?

But thankfully most of those aren't in the sciences, they're in social studies, which is why all the lefty lunatics you see these days aren't produced by physics classes, but rather gender studies classes.

Oh don't worry, they're a-comin' ...

If a teacher tells you something like, i don't know, 1 ton of feathers is the same as 1 ton of bricks, he'll probably go ahead and explain it to you. Thats what i did anyway. If i had a question or a doubt, i asked and was given an answer.

Yeah, that's good teaching then.

[Daedius]

Most laces do not have that anymore either.

Standard subject here in Ireland. You referring to the US?

[Zuben]

Math, you'll learn English from the entertainment industry far more effectively than at school.

[Neenaw]

The native language

[Powerogue]

Critical thinking, which doesn't seem to be taught at all in the US and frankly it explains a lot. We have more information readily and easily available in milliseconds than could ever be learned, what matters is differentiating what's true from what's false.

I recognize why people are saying math and science, they're integral to our modern world functioning, but more than the bare bones basics is rarely called upon for the average layperson.

Edit: Though I may change my vote to reading, something I definitely take for granted. Kind of putting the cart before the horse, you can't research a topic and come to an educated position on it if you can't read.

[Forgettable]

I would say learning how to learn. Though it's not typically explicitly taught in school.

[Themius]

Critical thinking, which doesn't seem to be taught at all in the US and frankly it explains a lot. We have more information readily and easily available in milliseconds than could ever be learned, what matters is differentiating what's true from what's false.

I recognize why people are saying math and science, they're integral to our modern world functioning, but more than the bare bones basics is rarely called upon for the average layperson.

Edit: Though I may change my vote to reading, something I definitely take for granted. Kind of putting the cart before the horse, you can't research a topic and come to an educated position on it if you can't read.

You can’t be serious... much of the English curriculum is about critical thinking and analysis of literature. And math requires again tons of critical thinking.

[crewskater]

Probably sexual education. Abstinence only shouldn't be a thing. Not having kids before you're married will be a huge help to society.

[Unholyground]

Standard subject here in Ireland. You referring to the US?

Canada even, we don't have it.

[vindicatorx]

In general, what subject do you think is the most important (in a traditional schooling system).

I would say English (as a non-native speaker).

Anyone saying anything other than math is out of touch with reality

- - - Updated - - -

Edit: Though I may change my vote to reading, something I definitely take for granted. Kind of putting the cart before the horse, you can't research a topic and come to an educated position on it if you can't read.

I learned how to read before I was in school.

[Ragnarohk]

Anyone saying anything other than math is out of touch with reality

- - - Updated - - -


I learned how to read before I was in school.

I still think English is more important than Math (at a high school level). It opens the doors to work in a modern and globalized world.

Basic math is elemental, but the stuff you learn at the end becomes useless if you don't apply it in your everyday life.

Also. I feel like my High School education was a waste. Can't even remember half of what I learned.

[Shadowferal]

Dogma is good enough for younger grades.
But later, students should understand research and critical thinking.

[Molis]

Language arts then math then science

[Tziva]

You can’t be serious... much of the English curriculum is about critical thinking and analysis of literature. And math requires again tons of critical thinking.

I think the people listing this (I included it as important in my list itself) are talking about something slightly different than you. There is an actual course for Critical Thinking -- it's uni level in the US thought / public schools don't offer it -- that goes well beyond the depth you should gain just from other courses during your education. It typically covers logic formulas (which you will have some experience with in mathematical courses but many people struggle with outside of a numbers context), deductive/inductive/etc reasoning, rational and critic philosophy, logical fallacies, research and data interpretation/analysis, etc. Most people should have skimmed on a lot of this stuff in a superficial way throughout their education and a lot of it gleaned from common sense, but it does go well above and beyond all that.

It's typically a class found in undergrad philosophy departments, but it's the kind of material that is going to be largely worthwhile to any person whether they are getting a humanities degree or just for the sake of being able to be a more intelligent, rational adult.

[Themius]

I think the people listing this (I included it as important in my list itself) are talking about something slightly different than you. There is an actual course for Critical Thinking -- it's uni level in the US thought / public schools don't offer it -- that goes well beyond the depth you should gain just from other courses during your education. It typically covers logic formulas (which you will have some experience with in mathematical courses but many people struggle with outside of a numbers context), deductive/inductive/etc reasoning, rational and critic philosophy, logical fallacies, research and data interpretation/analysis, etc. Most people should have skimmed on a lot of this stuff in a superficial way throughout their education and a lot of it gleaned from common sense, but it does go well above and beyond all that.

It's typically a class found in undergrad philosophy departments, but it's the kind of material that is going to be largely worthwhile to any person whether they are getting a humanities degree or just for the sake of being able to be a more intelligent, rational adult.

Could a discrete structures course give you some of what you'd need concerting critical thinking and reasoning?

Anyway I don't think a pure critical thinking class is integral for all. There is a healthy amount of critical thinking that goes into a lot of literature classes and history classes is there in most decent programs.

[Tziva]

Could a discrete structures course give you some of what you'd need concerting critical thinking and reasoning?

Anyway I don't think a pure critical thinking class is integral for all. There is a healthy amount of critical thinking that goes into a lot of literature classes and history classes is there in most decent programs.

I'm not going to say The Most Important™ subject, but I think it is offering more value than you are thinking, and I think it's the kind of class that should probably be required for uni general ed classes before moving into your chosen program.

I personally got a lot of the course when I took it and still learned a lot even as someone who would have considered myself good at critical thinking beforehand, and who had done a lot of analytical coursework in other classes such a history, literature and even other philosophy classes, even at the college level. As I said, it goes well beyond general critical thinking skills that everyone should develop through their education, and gives you a lot of practice and knowledge for identifying, categorising, breaking down arguments, identifying logical fallacies, etc. People will get a lot of that on some level through their schooling, but not at the same depth -- which is still a practically useful level.

A lot of philosophy classes just end up being mental masturbation -- I say this as someone who has a degree in it -- so I get the skepticism in its necessity, but if there was any class in the entire department I'd say is of great value to everyone, it's that. Critical Thinking and Social Science Statistics (statistics specifically within the context of interpreting real world studies and data, learning how to identify and add/remove skew) are probably two of the classes I took at university that provided the most benefit in critical thought in a real world context, far beyond what I got just from using analytical thought in other contexts. The ability to judge and analyse things outside of an academic context is very important to any thinking adult, and anything that gives you increased ability and familiarity to do so is a valuable life skill.

It's also worth saying that just on a pragmatic level, what skills people should develop from their regular education and what skills people actually do get is vastly different. Besides the shift in the US school systems teaching to the tests and promoting memorisation over actual critical thinking probably diminishing opportunities for people to develop those skills to begin with, it is very obvious from interacting with adults in the world that most people desperately DO need a formal education in critical thinking. Whether it's sharing false information, or not knowing how to correct judge the sources of an article, or simply just encountering shitty arguments on the internet, it is pretty obvious that regardless of whether people should be able to do something, a great great great many cannot even if they are generally intelligent humans.


edit: proof read my post and god i suck at brevity sorry for the convoluted sentences but i give up on trying to be more coherent and succinct. i will just appologise instead.