Most of formal education is a complete waste of time

Memory Loss Factor When your argument depends so largely on the memory loss factor and the extent to which it is shown, you do have to prove it. Again, without citing studies that I personally do not have time to scrutinize, you just have to talk to any adult who has been out of a classroom for a few years and ask them how confident they are in what they remember from their school years. Also watch the 5th grader tv show if you can find the reruns. It is really quite hilarious. Some of them are highly "educated" professionals and they cannot answer basic 5th grade questions. Problem-solving in Science A classic example of science classes teaching problem-solving skills would be with the egg drop experiment. With this experiment, science classes will be divided up into mini groups, and these groups will have to build a contraption to protect an egg from cracking when dropped. Here is a sample rubric (3). This is very difficult to do, but the students are told to figure it out. This is just one of the many experiments science classes will do to encourage problem-solving skills. Problem solving is fine but why do you need formal classroom education to do that? If problem solving is so learned by students in school, why is our country just loaded with dumb people? Just keep an eye on politics and see how people vote and how they think their guy is the right guy to solve this country's problems and see how good their problem solving skills are. Winston Churchhill once said that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. You are not who I am talking about. You are not stupid and you obviously have intelligence beyond your years and kudos for that but you are giving the rest of formal education and its results waaaaaay too much credit! The Internet I’m glad that Pro has conceded the point that schools teach valuable life-skills. Some of any schooling in or out of a classroom can teach valuable life skills. In the first round, I said that 80-90 percent of formal education was a waste of time. I never said all of it was. That being said, his argument against that was to cite the Internet, which do not as effectively teach the skills listed. He then says that he doesn’t see the value of sitting for hours in a classroom, but I have already shown that it is a focused time period for practicing and developing skills. For this reason, formal education is not a complete waste of time. As stated, most skills are learned by people from doing their own reading and their own research and hopefully, practicing in a hands on environment. You do not have to get that from a classroom. Case in point: In high school I took 2 years of French. That was a waste of 2 years. I learned almost nothing and could not carry on a conversation in French if my life depended on it. Why we were taught French in the US is beyond me but I digress. Fast forward a few years until I moved to Miami Beach and had some roommates who were from Argentina and one hardly spoke English. In fact, most of Miami was Hispanic so I had an incentive to learn Spanish. With my roommates, friends and neighbors helping teach me and by me daily practicing. I learned a tremendous amount of Spanish in just a few months without the help of one classroom or even a book or audiotape. I simple had an incentive and a desire, something I and my other fellow students did not have when high school French was shoved in our face. Today, I still remember all of the Spanish I learned and Hispanic people tell me that my accent is perfect. This speaks volumes about this whole debate. I am positive that no one from my high school French class knows any more French that I know and that is a sadly small amount. However, no one cares because like many other courses, French is not important for 99.9% of Americans. Intelligent conversations with others My opponent says that we don’t need to sit in a classroom to be well read. However, students often need the extra push to be well read. Language arts classes encourage students to not only read the classics, but also to answer questions about them, discuss them, and analyze them. We don’t need to sit in a classroom to be well read, but a classroom certainly steers individuals in the right direction and helps them to comprehend their readings, and then to interpret their readings on their own. I don't understand why you think someone needs to be steered in a classroom for much of anything. People who are ready and able to learn can be steered by a parent, a book, an educational TV show, etc. I would love to see my kids go up in a quiz against government educated students in science and my kids science education comes mostly from a television show - The Magic School Bus. Mainly, people are steered by personal motivation at a right age at the right time. Then when their minds are teachable and wanting to learn, the learning comes so much easier and is more easily memorized. I know this because I have 47 years of experience learning and see others learn. Online Education as a Supplement My opponent says he disagrees here, but his refutation completely ignores my whole point about formal education giving direction to the research so it is well rounded, and that Google does not help develop all of the skills I have demonstrated. He also doesn’t counter my claim that it would be best used as a supplement. I just don't agree and I never meant that Google was everything. It simply replaces a ton of what is taught in schools. It is not going to teach you how to repair a transmission (I don't think). Some of this is useless to 99.9% of students I’ve already shown that the education, in the skills it provides, is not useless. I’ve also shown that if even .01% of students need it for their jobs, then, in the jobs respect, it is also not a complete waste of time, as the resolution states. I am simply saying that it is a complete waste of time for the 99.9% who could have been learning something more valuable than accountant skills. Conclusion My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof. Most of his rebuttals essentially come down to “You’re completely right, but you don’t need to be in school for that,” yet he doesn't show how to practice and develop those skills as effectively outside of school, and I’ve shown that school aids greatly, so it is not a complete waste of time. In order to show it is a complete waste of time, Pro needs to show that it is completely without value or usefulness. You are seemingly forgetting the title of this debate with the keyword being "most" formal education is a waste and you are trying to say that I am saying that all formal education is a waste and you have spent a large part of your arguments talking up education in general - not formal classroom education. Nowhere have I said or implied that education is a waste of time. It just depends on what you are educated on - something you will use and that is valuable in your life or calculus,dividing fractions and the history of ancient Brazilian civilizations (soon to forget). I have seen the results of formal education in many, many people and they are...well...an embarrassment to the system that you champion. Thanks for the debate!