>That's because in the past showing that you're "educated" by virtue signalling a particular experience with a particular type of education would allow you an inside track to social groups and employment of value.

Education isn't virtue signaling, and it's value isn't because it is virtuous. It's value is that it provides a deeper understanding of the foundations of civilization and language. Speaking solely of literature education.

>If there is anywhere in the World where we should question the value of that, it's on a forum dedicated to helping entrepreneurs build new things and to disrupt the World away from that kind of thinking.

Just because you write the words "should question" and "disrupt" doesn't imply that either of these actions are ultimately correct.

>Literature does socialize kids to values, whether you or I like it or not. It socializes adults too: that's the point of literature. We're all just stochastic parrots. Literature - and all other art - shapes what we parrot.

I disagree with your generalizations. Some literature might have that effect in a significant manner, some in a moderate manner, and some in an insignificant manner. The point being that traditional literature education doesn't hijack the curriculum to effect that primary goal, whereas your values are apparently so abandoned and otherwise unattractive that you feel the need to hijack literature education in order to force them on students. Who gets a vote as to what values will be taught, exactly? I assume that you'd be uncomfortable with that. It's better to keep explicit partisan politics and political grooming out of the secondary classroom.

>And yes, I also happen to think a lot of it is very dull writing liked by fusty old men in universities, rather than being a list of material that makes a person of impressionable age take something of it to use for themselves as they go out into the World. It's a missed opportunity. It is therefore dull and mediocre, in my view.

I think that your view is dull and mediocre. Lots of students love the material of the traditional curriculum, for good reason.

>I'm allowed to share my view on this mater as a comment, on a site dedicated to people sharing their opinions as comments. I'm sorry that my doing so seems to have upset you.

It doesn't upset me. I'm just not letting it stand as an assertion of facts.

>you are affronted by someone saying things you disagree with for reasons you can't explain

Don't gaslight me. I can explain my views perfectly, and was clear.

In contrast with you obviously and necessarily needing to be cagey with your full views. Like exactly what you want to see taught and replaced, down to the book. And why.

Whereas I correctly discerned and stated that you have partisan political motivations and want to see a shift toward student indoctrination with your preferred political principles. As a primary goal of the literature classroom.

Just like any sneak who can't bear to the thought of leaving the overt task of values to parents, education to teachers, and whatever you are peddling to less impressionable adults.

If your preferred values are so attractive then they students can become better acquainted with their explicit curriculum as adults. And make reasoned decisions about them.

All the while being more prepared and confident due to their better education.

What else did you want to know?