BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mathematics is pointless for the un-mathematically minded, the extreme right-brained, and the creative etc.

For many, the skills taught in mathematics are completely useless. If someone isn't good at mathematics, it isn't necessarily because they're 'stupid', but because they just don't think mathematically. Very creative people who are better at arts and humanities, english etc tend to find maths too restrictive for their minds -they look at things bigger and in more depth etc -for these people. maths has too many rules and is too confined for their minds. Whilst English gives you space to be creative, as well as giving you critical and analytical skills and encouraging you to become an independent thinker. Its not like Maths where you are spoon fed and you have to follow a certain formula or otherwise its wrong. Obviously maths is not completely pointless, and for those who are mathematically minded I think it is important that their skills and needs are fulfilled and they are given the opportunity to do maths, but as one of the people I have described myself, I find much of the curriculum far too left-brained, logic etc centred, and so I think there should be compulsory basic maths which everyone has to do and only teaches you what you REALLY need in real life, and an optional further maths for the 'geniuses!'. :)
The GCSE syllabus does not encourage young people to be interested in maths.

This suggests that we need to change the syllabus, not make it optional.  If it has a bad reputation because it is a poorly designed course and then it becomes optional, nobody will take it.  Many other subjects have the same reputation as mathematics. It is not a peculiarity of mathematics that young people are not enthusiastic about studying it. History is just long, boring lists of dates, physical education is running around a cold field in shorts,, general studies and life skills are wishy-washy subjects that anyone can pass and employers know aren't real subjects. The fact is, school and learning in general do not have a particularly good reputation. The very existence of the concept of a 'nerd' – the negative stereotype of an intellectually adept young person – demonstrates this. We cannot make learning optional. We need to adjust our underlying negative attitudes to education in general. Professor Andrew Hodges does not advocate 'NOT' teaching math/s but rather using more innovative/entertaining ways/means to do so. Therefore keeping pupils/students interested enough to effectively grasp the very important subject. Given that basic mathematics skills are a necessity in everyday life and in every subject there is on offer; its proper teaching should be made compulsory at the (I)G.C.S.E/G.C.E/I.C.E level.
In general, making things optional instead of compulsory can increase their popularity.

This is not a universal attitude. Young people of a very ordered mindset will like the structure and stability of knowing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. They may feel insecure and confused about having to make choices. Others may equate 'compulsory' with 'important' and believe that they can relax and not do as much work for the 'softer' optional subjects. Some will realise that, while there is some leeway, all of school is actually compulsory and they have barely any real control over what they do, and so they won't be impressed by making a subject optional.
Students should instead take humanitarian subjects.

Making humanities compulsory would result in humanities being hated by students who feel forced to study it. Religious Studies is already compulsory at GCSE in many schools and is usually dropped at A-level. Making humanities compulsory would not guarantee that the humanities curriculum is put together competently and is useful for making day-to-day moral decisions. The Mathematics curriculum is badly put together, so why would the Humanities curriculum be any better?
We've always wanted more

Its never enough. Plain and simple as that. As long as there are scientists there are people desiring more and more. I agree, Technology is spreading across the world making everyone want more, but realistically speaking, its just making people realize what we have the capability of. 70" LED TVS!? Really? Mobile phones capable of phone calls, playing music, playing movies, accessing the internet. Mobile computers, touch screen tablets, E readers all the way to Pens that record your movement and documents not only what you write but what the microphone inside hears to capture notes and lectures. The internet in itself is an amazing creation. Now people can not only email all over the world, but play actual high end graphic 3D video games with (seemingly) countless people from all around the globe, meeting together in this virtual world to work together or against each other to complete a task at hand. Now that people have tasted excess they want more and they know what technology is capable of today or tomorrows. Its so much more than being materialistic. Its a convenience and understanding of where we stand as a technological society
Less need for homework.

Well how much of a social life and play time can you actually have if you're at school until all hours of the night?? Yea, none. In reality, most schools offer a study hall or IRP to give the students sometime to get homework done. Most students don't have homework and if they come home with it it's probably because they didn't take the time in school to get it done or they just slacked off and talked to their friends. There is plenty of time to get at least some homework done in school and it's much easier to work at home.
Time to finish activities

Every day, children could be in their last hour writing a story, doing persuasive writing or other important work, when the bell might ring. They come back the next day and can't remember what they were going to write. This isn't good, especially in a test, when you could then receive bad marks, which may be part of their reports. If you want a better report, to do better at school, and have a better life, I suggest that school hours should be extended.
So much easier for parents!

If the school hours are extended, adults wouldn't have to pay for after-school care for as long as they would now. Also, they would be able to work longer hours thus getting more money, and making life more of a luxury. For instance, lets say that you finish school at 3pm. Your parents might put you in after-school care from 3pm-5pm, until they can pick you up. After-school care, in my case, is $50 per hour. Are parents willing to pay this price? I should think not. If we extend school hours to 5pm, they won't have to put you in after-school care saving about $500 per week. Also, adults could work for longer and pick you up at about quarter-past 5-5:30, as you are allowed to stay after school is over for an amount of time. If we make school longer, this will save money, get adults more and make your life more luxurious.
Career mothers are better educated

Women with careers often have a higher degree of education. Even though they might not be home all of the time, they have the means necessary to educate their children better. A stay at home mother can only teach as much as she knows and if this is only the sphere of domestic duties the child will grow up knowing how to be a housewife and the circle will be perpetuated. A major general finding from social science research is the strong association between children's well-being and families socioeconomic background consisting particularly of human capital; such as innate or learned skills, educational attainment, psychological and health status, personal or psychological resources; resiliency, positive outlook, motivation, and "social capital"; such as community ties, relations with neighbours and friends. This is also based to a lesser extent on income; in 1994-1995, for children aged 4-5 years in Canada mean family income in a two-parent family was $64,000 with a working mother and $46,000 with a "non-working" mother; in a single mother family, mean income was $26,000 with a working mother and $15,000 with a "non-working" mother. So therefore there is a good chance that those families with a career woman will be better educated and the better the socioeconomic group the better the prospects of the child.'Family Background, Family Income, Maternal Work and Child Development', Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, (Oct. 1998) http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/cs/sp/sdc/pkrf/publications/research/1998-002345/page04.shtml%5D%5D
housewives give children the attention they need

All this attention can be suffocating. Children need space to grow. Traditionally housewives had many children; therefore each child had the room to grow individually and independently: Attention was divided. Now people have fewer children and mothers can be overly involved in their little ones' lives. Making it difficult for children to develop useful skills of independence; required to ultimately stand on their own feet, make friends etc. When they grow up they will probably rely on their mothers to pay their bills, they will call "mummy" from work if they can't get that promotion! they will probably be inseparable from their mothers; causing stress to people. A housewife is usually busy tending to the house or doing the more practical jobs of raising children, such as feeding them, rather than actually spending time with them and being loving/affectionate. If they come home from work, they will want to spend that time relaxing and being in a positive mood.
housewives are friends with their children

Housewives only have relationships to interfere in; and mothers can be very competitive career-women or not. They can be jealous of your youth/freedom/beauty/intelligence/career/anything? and mothers can expect you to nurture them or your siblings instead of going for 'selfish pursuits'. And since they don't have their own careers housewives are at times; intent on inadvertently spoiling their daughters' careers. It's like teachers who've failed in their subject of teaching; they could either help you thwart all the mistakes they made; making sure you succeed with all their might or AND sadly this 'is' what happens most of the time they'll bring you down harder than ever because they suffered. Career women using the same analogy can be like teachers who succeeded. Who won't only stop you from making mistakes , but teach you the tricks of the trade. The sneak-peaks,cheats and all the learning/growing/success-aides they've picked on their way up; high up. Even self-involved career women teach by example. Daughters want to develop the same work-ethic, get the same respect and tend to value achievement. Housewives work hard too with their domestic tasks, and are often overworked and in bad moods. The child is the first available target of this hostility, especially if they are underfoot/in the way of the work needing to be done. counter to second counter: Housewives(especially socialites) are very capable of leaving/disposing tots to the nanny.
daughters need good role models

And who's to say a housewife cannot be a good role model? Housewives can be well-educated; good-looking and put-together. And many are. Running a home/family is no easy task and can be very fulfilling; if you do it right. I could not imagine a better role model than that of a present, loving, capable and devoted mother. Daughters need to know that motherhood is a choice and a huge responsibility. Being accountable for one's choices is a sign of dignity and maturity. Putting children on the backburning for personal desires is an injustice. That is why working moms feel bad about leaving their children. Deep down the truth hurts.
ADJUSTMENT

Adjustment results from exposure to other people. A housewife can have many house guests frequently frequenting her home. Children are therefore exposed to many people and have to learn to adjust/socialize in such an environment. Many offspring recite poems,sing songs and otherwise perform for these guests. However, a home with a housewife can be very lonely; while privacy is hard to come by. Some mothers treat children like nothing more than sounding boards. Where friends/family can walk away or fault them ; children have to listen at least until they're teenagers. Alternatively a home run by career woman can be full or empty too. A career woman could, out of the guilt of being a working mother; feel the need to smother her child every chance she gets; making sure the child is not surrounded by strangers. Leaving him/her very incapable of social development/adjustment. Working mothers can overcompensate by being overprotective and somehow suffocating for their child/children.
Career mothers are better educated

To say a mother without a career is a worse mother because she is somehow less intelligent is making a mockery of women's autonomy of choice. Many well qualified women stay at home to look after their child out of love and passion. A argument that career mothers are better because they are more capable to educate their child is not applicable anyway, as surely the level of education a child needs before entering schooling can be taught by anyone and certainly will not include complex accounts management or advance trigonometry!!! This argument implies that a better educated parent will make a more intelligent child. That is ridiculous.As long as the child is well looked after, fed three times a day, given the opportunities to explore, with a warm shelter and a roof over their heads the parents are doing a good job. Even if the career women are more intellectual and can be more stimulating to the child's mind, you must factor in having to work late into this complex equation. Many career driven parents won't be home until after the child has gone to sleep and as such the 'education' that they can pass on is already limited. I wanted to state that I disagree on the idea that 'housewives' are less educated. I have worked when I needed to. Right now I can stay at home, and I love it. I teach my boys the alphabet,numbers,colors, shapes,we go outside and do various activities, cook,clean, and the list goes on. My children are learning responsibility within the home, and also enjoying their childhood; by having educational fun. My husband drives truck, and he is not home very often. We hope that as the children get older he can stay home longer. He enjoys that, and it shows the boys the "work side" of life as well. My boys can also travel with him when they are 10 years old. I was a Certified Nursing Assistant, and I am soon getting my Associates of Arts in Healthcare Administration (in case,or when I decide to work). We also have the internet, and a public library. I can teach my children about everything under moon. I read once that many people today are wishing they rent. Instead of having burden on their home, and mortgage. I don't mind renting, not having fancy technological gadgets, and not paying an expensive car loan. My children also don't get showered with presents during birthdays, and Christmas. Life is not about materialistic qualities. It depends on the parents views, and what the parents decide is best. I believe either decision can be worked out.
housewives give children the attention they need

Psychologically,diet-wise and academically. Housewives can be both educated and uneducated but the fact that they spend more time with their children means that they put in a greater effort and since they are not preoccupied with their job(read: cellphone); they pay the close attention needed to keep their children out of trouble. Think of housewives as inspectors in your home; they will make sure the food's on the table,children have done their chores/homework, will talk to the kids even when they don't want; unlike fathers they can stroll into bedrooms at any time and check every nook-&-Corner so it is drug/cigarette/alcohol-free. A busy mother will be humming about worrying about the way she might lose the promotion to her professional nemesis ! Counter: Talking to your parents about paying bills and getting a promotion; makes older people feel useful and younger people(the children) feel secure that they have the family/fall-back option. That their parents can be relied on not feared; respected/loved/kind/understanding rather than unhelpful and distant. Parents themselves feel that children who talked to them about their problems can be trusted/leaned-on with their own. Thus [parents trust their children to be there for them in their time of need. This symbiosis throughout lifetimes is healthy and efficient for both parent/(s) and child/(children). People want to be relaxed all the time(At home AND at work) that is why all the research on work-stress is so important. The key to good health according to most research is having people around irrespective of whether they are tense or relaxed; just having them around provides security/welfare.
housewives are friends with their children

Friends come and go ; family sticks but not always. Mothers(those who were with you every step of the way in your development:housewives) you can rely on. they are the best friends who won't cheat on you with your boyfriend; who won't be jealous of your achievements and who will motivate you to chase your dreams with full fervor. Especially when they are not ambitious career women themselves. counter: career women generally set great examples for daughters but not sons unless their husband's have equally strong/stronger personalities. If the father is resentful of his wife's success/job; and complains every time he is with the kids then both daughters and sons pay. Then again different people react different; high pressure can bring out the best results in some people and the worst in others. It's best that the mother who knows best (for her kids) spends enough time with them to know what will work for each one. counter: Yes; housewives can/do lose their temper but not any more than the-emotionally-detached-ambitious-career-obsessed-father who doesn't wish to be disturbed at all times and orders the kids be taken away, put to sleep and/or fed all the time. Only a housewife can put with such a terrible caricature of a husband/father while a career-woman will probably do the same leaving children to their nannies and so forth. Working mothers take out their workplace stress on their children. They do not have time or energy for them. They are mothers in name only.
Museums preserve and display our artistic, social, scientific and political heritage. Everyone shou...

Museums preserve and display our artistic, social, scientific and political heritage. Everyone should have access to such important cultural resources as part of active citizenship, and because of the educational opportunities they offer to people of every age. If museums are not funded sufficiently by the government, they will be forced to charge for entry, and this will inevitably deter many potential visitors, especially the poor and those whose educational and cultural opportunities have already been limited. Visitors to the Victoria and Albert Museum in London declined by 15% after it started charging for admission. Free access is essential to provide freedom of cultural and educational opportunity.
Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education for our increasingly important creative in...

Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education for our increasingly important creative industries (e.g. art, design, fashion, and architecture). Free access is an investment in the future of this sector of the economy and therefore has long-term benefits in securing prosperity for the whole of society. Similarly, tourism is an important sector of our economy and many visitors will be deterred from visiting our country if they think it will be very expensive to visit its great museums and galleries. Tourists do contribute hugely to government revenues through the indirect taxes they pay and the jobs they generate, so free museum access to support the tourism industry is a sensible investment.
Television is not an adequate substitute for widely accessible museums. At a museum a visitor can c...

Television is not an adequate substitute for widely accessible museums. At a museum a visitor can choose what to see and for how long they wish to study it; television is a much more passive medium making the viewer dependent upon the interests and interpretation of the producer - it is likely to present sensationalist and controversial material in a bid for ratings, for example. Nor can a two-dimensional medium compare to viewing an object, even a flat painting, from many different angles, or even handling it, in a museum.
Education is not just in schools, parents also have an important role in broadening their children’s...

Education is not just in schools, parents also have an important role in broadening their children’s cultural horizons through museum visits, among other forms of creative and intellectual stimulus. Children may have free entry at many museums, but parents are often charged high prices, deterring family visits, especially from the poor and from those families who do not prize education so highly. Again, this is an equal opportunity issue, being one of the reasons why middle-class children outperform their less-privileged peers academically.
Museums preserve and display our artistic, social, scientific and political heritage. Everyone shou...

Not everyone wishes to visit museums, which are essentially a form of entertainment for the middle classes and tourists. The majority of adults never visit a museum, preferring instead leisure pursuits such as football, the cinema or clubbing. Why should they have to pay for their chosen entertainment while subsidising the generally wealthier middle class through their taxes? Tourists pay no taxes here and so gain a free ride at the expense of domestic taxpayers. The state provides educational opportunities for all through free schooling, which often includes free museum trips. If free museum entry were considered a cultural right, shouldn’t the state make theatre tickets free as well?
Museums are a crucial source of inspiration and education for our increasingly important creative in...

Such potential economic benefits are dubious and rely upon access to collections that are excellent in their content and in the way in which they are conserved and displayed. If museums are to be funded entirely out of public money, the pressure on any government’s budget from the demands of hospitals, schools, pensions, etc. will inevitably mean that museums will come a poor second, resulting in under-funding and poorer museums at the end of the process. This will not help our creative industries or tourism. It is excellence rather than the cost of visiting attractions which attracts tourists in any case.
Museums have a valuable role in preserving and transmitting a nation’s history and heritage to new g...

If museums are entirely funded by the state, they will have little incentive to increase visitor numbers and to make their collections exciting and accessible for all. The need to attract paying customers concentrates the minds of museum and gallery directors upon the needs of the public and produces imaginative and popular exhibitions, as well as adding value through guided tours, lectures and tie-ins with television programmes. All of this ensures that more people, not less visit museums. In addition, if museums were made entirely reliant upon public funding, it is likely that money would be channelled to those institutions the government felt were most important, forcing smaller, local or more specialist museums to close. Nazi Germany also points to the dangers of allowing politicians control over interpretations of national identity and presentations of other cultures.