As much as tyranny is generally counter-productive, as it is good when kids cannot choose subjects to study. Kids educated by a despotic bloody antihuman regime were domed to all 10 years of math, 6 years of physics, biology, geography, foreign language, history and literature, 4 years of chemistry, 1 of astronomy and I must forgot something. There were also art and music, but these were ridiculously taught, so forget about them. Now if I had a choice, I would be happy to prefer history to literature, physics to chemistry and skip this boring biology altogether. And there would be no good in it. You cannot choose to learn your 10 favorite letters from the alphabet, you need them all. Not that I remember much from all this but I am sure each branch of science makes its own unique contribution to a child's intellectual development (supplying various mental models, if nothing else) and shall not be skipped. What do you think? I also wonder how much curriculum varies among countries. I heard that in Japan there is an emphasis on art, but we probably do not have anybody from Japan in this forum. We do have people from China, right? Johnson Chong? [ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
The fact is, er...., I youthink that when the mind is preoccupied with a thing in which it is good with, it would cease to delve and develop in other areas. When someone is spending time developing his articulation in giving speeches, he would cease to dwell in the physical aspects if there's no cause or calling for him to. So rock on with _formatted_ XML, lowest operating cost _producing_ matrix II _with_ hewlett packard _computers_. Words with _XXXX_ are actually already filled in the blanks words.
I don't see how you can be master of anything without understanding the basics of many things. How can you be a master of astronomy without understanding earth sciences, chemistry, and physics? How can you write articles and spread your knowledge without being well read? Music, art, and literature help to make you a more interesting person not to mention the value they bring to help us to understand the human condition.
I would say that it's awfully difficult to ask a child what it is they'd like to be a "master" of. Rather, give them a broad base to work from and, when the children get out of the primary education and go into the "real world" or on to college, then they can choose what it is they'd like to study. How many biologists would there be in the world in children were never exposed to biology? Corey