> Most people that are academically inclined are self motivated and have a desire to learn more.
Isn't that by definition? Most xes are x.
> Most people aren't academically inclined
Is that so?
> It is odd that the curriculum tends to accommodate people that aren't academically inclined at the expense of those that actually want to learn.
Well, if what you say is true, isn't it fair that the program is catered to the majority, who are apparently not academically inclined? For one size fits all mass education, catering to the largest mass is the best you can do.
> People that aren't academically inclined should not be forced to learn, or at least forced only insofar as they're baseline literacy so that they function in today's world.
Isn't that what the curriculum already accommodates then? Didn't you just say that?
>Isn't that what the curriculum already accommodates then? Didn't you just say that?
No. The current curriculum penalizes people that are academically incline. Fast track programs are difficult to access for example.
>For one size fits all mass education, catering to the largest mass is the best you can do.
Yes. But we now have other options.
> Most people aren't academically inclined
>>Is that so?
As OP pointed out most people need someone to guide them and give them directions. This is because a lot of kids are not interested in learning and do "bugger all" without supervision.
The kind of self-directed learning only benefits people that are already academically motivated.
>Isn't that by definition? Most xes are x.
Yes. This was in contrast to what OP was saying, which is "The pandemic showed us exactly what children would prefer to do, when they don't have a physical teacher standing over them, which is bugger all."
This isn't true for students that are academically inclined. Only true for those that aren't academically inclined.
Isn't that by definition? Most xes are x.
> Most people aren't academically inclined
Is that so?
> It is odd that the curriculum tends to accommodate people that aren't academically inclined at the expense of those that actually want to learn.
Well, if what you say is true, isn't it fair that the program is catered to the majority, who are apparently not academically inclined? For one size fits all mass education, catering to the largest mass is the best you can do.
> People that aren't academically inclined should not be forced to learn, or at least forced only insofar as they're baseline literacy so that they function in today's world.
Isn't that what the curriculum already accommodates then? Didn't you just say that?