There's no question to me that early exposure and encouragement makes all the difference in educating kids. I can't understand why we're not engineering experiences in all these different fields for kids to build real stuff that can eventually turn into a trade. If you're a kid, even today, and you want to learn an adult trade young, your options are still pretty much just artist or programmer.
If there was a way to start doctors or lawyers young, maybe it'd make a difference. As a kid, I knew one girl that was a hospital volunteer, and she ended up going to Africa as an adult to try and make the world a better place by helping others. People don't realize how activities in formative years really stick with kids.
Instead of giving kids meaningful work, we're raising a generation that's going to be great at self-promotion and fortnite.
Our entire school system is wrong. :) I am working on it. We force parents to go to school and that is wrong.
The key to rapid education is teaching the correct subjects. All science is functionally math. Physics is math and chemistry is math. Music is math. All written homework is functionally English. Art is functionally understanding of light and shadows, which is best taught through photography. Photography decouples ability to render (drawing) from ability to compose. Until the child is fluent at algebra and written English, teaching other subjects except for athletics relies on the child's innate talent or, more likely, their parents.
In other words, you cannot swap all time for study of english and mathematics and expect to simply achieve twice as much in english and mathematics.
Learning 45 minutes at a time is silly. It's far more effective to master one concept at a time.
Logic comes with math. I haven't fully thought it through, but my initial goal is to eliminate the need to rely on parents to do well in school.
> The first is the sort who enjoys it for what it is. Shaves yaks configuring his system, tries out new languages for the heck of it, that sort. The second has a perfectly respectable career in software, and enjoys other things when he comes home at five p.m.
I have found out that these are not in opposition at all. In fact, workplace that holds you in 80 hours a week largely prevents trying out new tech. People dont stay long because trying out new toys. If they do, then they are being dishonest with employer, honestly. They stay long because of stress, pressure, disorganization, etc.
The conflation of the two really not logical, it does not even makes sense. Why cant you go home at 5 and "try out new languages for the heck of it" wherever you feel like? Should you even try out that new language production project? (you should not)
I'd say if you really want youth interested in technology, you basically need a "montessori model" for computers. I don't believe that's likely to happen in school; you need funding, which requires measurable results. There's also too much bad stuff on the internet for schools to run that risk at that scale.
There are two rough classes into which I would break "tech guys". The first is the sort who enjoys it for what it is. Shaves yaks configuring his system, tries out new languages for the heck of it, that sort. The second has a perfectly respectable career in software, and enjoys other things when he comes home at five p.m. I'm not saying one is better or worse, but at seven years of age, you'll only have the few of the first type _really_ interested. Type two will often switch to a different toy once frustrated (i.e. upon a serious bug). You can't expect everyone to derive the same level of marginal benefit from just playing with tech.
Type twos necessarily better or worse, but we don't put kids into "plumbing boot-camp" at seven expecting them to develop life-long passions. Maybe a few will, but not many. To put it another way, you'll get a lot more kids into architecture letting them play with legos free-form than handing them a kit and saying, "Build this model by following the instructions."