Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy
-
@Gąska It seems we have a very different experience of school. Above elementary level, I don't remember (ah ah) having to remember lists of kings or similar useless stuff. I was expected to know some of them (like if a text in history mentioned Louis XIV, I was expected to know who he was and roughly when he was king), but no one ever graded me on lists of trivia questions.
Basically, elementary school did include lists of trivia (kings, multiplication tables...) because when you don't know a thing about a topic, and are too young to really understand underlying principles, it's the only way to build some foundations. Not only trivia, but a fair amount. Usually quizzes would not include absolutely pointless bits of trivia (like remembering the exact year of death of a king), but they would have some degree of it. Yeah, that requires some rote learning, but from personal experience (I'm pretty bad at that), not enough that you couldn't get good grades without it (I did).
High school was extracting underlying rules from trivia we learnt earlier and learning about those rules. It's no longer about dates of kings and wars, but how the trend of history created states, economies, and those created conflicts and wars etc. It's no longer multiplication tables but analysis. Well, still at a fairly basic level, of course, but at that point you were 1) expected to know the trivia and 2) if you did not know the trivia but understood the other principles, you would still manage to get good grades (like, you might not remember the exact year of a war but know it happened more or less at the same time as another war so in a dissertation you can mention both together -- or in maths you might not remember 8x7 but you know how to compute it fast enough for it not to matter).
I remember one geography teacher who got cross one day that we didn't knew the numbers of each French departement, and decided to quizz us on that in the following weeks. That is undoubtedly pointless trivia, and the reason I remember it is that even at the time, that all struck us as, well, pointless trivia, and out of the usual of what teachers would normally ask us (in other words: he was a bad teacher). Even so, I don't remember that it actually had any significant weight in our grades.
My understanding of other education systems (in first world countries) was that they were more or less the same, and that seems a pretty sound way of doing things. If it's not the case in your country, then I agree you've got a fucked up system.
-
@remi yeah, it really sounds like France got it right (or at least more right than Poland). I base my posts on my and many other people's experience with Polish system, my sister's experience with American system, and stories of my several friends who went to German school - in all three systems, it seems the education focuses mostly on raw facts all the way to high school graduation, and in some cases, up to several years of college.
-
@xaade said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
No one questions that bacteria can rapidly evolve.
People question the assumption that since evolution is apparent, that everything evolved from primitive life.People don't really question greenhouse gases.
They question that man can emit enough of an effect to drastically alter the climate.No one questions gravity. They just question if it's actually strong enough to keep you from floating through the air.
Public education drills into kids the proper form of an experiment. Then you say, "hey, there's no second Earth without humans on it, so why are scientists so sure. There's no way to observe the evolution chain, so why are scientists so sure."
There is a disconnect between the assumption of what must be lacking any evidence to the contrary, and truth (TM). There's a level of confidence in the assumption that doesn't seem logical.
: Okay, so you've shown that bacteria evolve and you have shown that species evolve (breeding dogs, crop, etc.), but you haven't shown how species have evolved from simpler species
: Actually, there's ton of evidence. Look at all these fossils over the millennia, and you see evolution from tiny animals to fish, reptiles, dinosaurs, ..., mammals, ...
: But there's still a missing link between Neanderthals and X
... time passes...
: Look, we've just found another link in the chain and Y is directly between neanderthals and X
: Yeah, but now there's still a missing link between ...
...
ad infinitum
...
: That still doesn't prove anything, there's still missing links 
. All this evolution nonsense seems completely made up and illogical.Scientists do not claim ultimate truth, that's not even their field. But the level of confidence in their models is proportional to the amount of evidence present.
If there was more humility in the discussion, along the lines of, "We don't know, but lacking other information, we see a trend we must act on / consider highly probable." I think they'd find more people willing to go along.
That's exactly what's happening. The science says that it's highly probable and, lacking any evidence to the contrary, it's plausible to go with that model.
But that's not the language used. The language used is, "settled science", which implies "unquestionable, infallible." And that level of arrogance is what people are having a hard time getting past. So it becomes reasonable to question whether there is bias or motive, because this is contrary to the nature of science itself, being discovery, curiosity, and forever criticizing and questioning.
No. People are looking for any excuse to ignore current scientific knowledge. If global warming will turn out to be less of a problem than predicted, good for all of us. If there is actual scientific criticism the scientists are always willing to question and improve their models. That's their job.
But people sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "it's a hoax, the Chinese made it all up" is not based on any legitimate criticism on the science involved. It's "you said 95% sure so you don't know 100%, so I am completely free to assume whatever I want."Under that suspicion, it becomes reasonable to question whether scientists are being persuaded under external influence, and given the political sphere exaggerating to the extremes, it's the number one suspect.
Yes, if you want to reach that conclusion and look for anything to make it, then "scientists are conspiring to hide the truth" is a good way to go.
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Agreed. But some informations are more important than others - like, knowing there was a war is more important than knowing there was a battle. Curricula of all school subjects are overloaded with the latter kind.
You've argued the exact opposite previously when I asked if you think there is or isn't anything more valuable to learn than "random bullshit I just made up".
-
@topspin said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Agreed. But some informations are more important than others - like, knowing there was a war is more important than knowing there was a battle. Curricula of all school subjects are overloaded with the latter kind.
You've argued the exact opposite previously when I asked if you think there is or isn't anything more valuable to learn than "random bullshit I just made up".
I didn't? All I've said is that the bar of how valuable something must be to appear in school curriculum is currently extremely low.
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
it really sounds like France got it right
Wow, that's got to be the first time!
(or at least more right than Poland).
Oh, the bar wasn't very high...
(seriously though, I'm no education expert so my knowledge is mostly based on what I experienced, so maybe I just was lucky and had good teachers)
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Nothing in chemistry (at high school level) depends on knowing the difference in properties of hexanol and octanol.
Yeah, that's a rather big fail on your part. Becase there is quite a lot which depends on that difference.
Example? Note the "at high school level". I realize the difference might be quite significant in industrial chemical processes. But at high school level, it's just another bunch of numbers and associated labels to memorize.
You do realize that even at the high school level we almost never make the pupils memorize numbers? Save for the obvious ones like pH boundaries.
But being able to estimate relative flammability / solubility / reactivity is quite an important part of chemistry. Usually we give them the numbers and then they have to reason which chemical should belong to which number.
You really have no fucking clue at all how our lessons work. As I said: YOU had a bad experience and now you broadly overestimate.
-
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
we almost never make the pupils memorize numbers?
Maybe the polish schools where @g�ska studied do?
-
I'm not going to delve into the specific argument, just put some things out here.
- People learn new information by relating it to information they already have.
- Information that reinforces prior knowledge (true or not) is more easily acquired than information that refutes prior knowledge.
- People have to both be taught facts and algorithms for reasoning from those facts.
- Some facts are more central than others.
Ideally, education would proceed in a loop:
- Acquire the basic underlying facts necessary to proceed. Many of these need to be hard memorized, no ifs, ands, or buts. And seemingly unimportant facts may be critical later.
- Acquire the first layer of algorithms to process those facts. This is mostly done by repeated exposure and practice on a variety of fact patterns.
- Loop 1 & 2 at increasing levels of depth
- Simultaneous with 3 (but starting a bit later), acquire meta-algorithms--thought patterns that guide matching the algorithms learned in #2 to previously-unseen fact patterns.
Different age brackets generally do better with different parts. Elementary students are often specialized to acquiring facts (as anyone who has been around a 5-year-old who knows everything about dinosaurs knows full well). By the time they're older, there's less basic facts left, so you're several layers deep.
-
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Nothing in chemistry (at high school level) depends on knowing the difference in properties of hexanol and octanol.
Yeah, that's a rather big fail on your part. Becase there is quite a lot which depends on that difference.
Example? Note the "at high school level". I realize the difference might be quite significant in industrial chemical processes. But at high school level, it's just another bunch of numbers and associated labels to memorize.
You do realize that even at the high school level we almost never make the pupils memorize numbers? Save for the obvious ones like pH boundaries.
No, I don't. But I know for sure that over here, they do make pupils memorize which esters are liquid and which are solid at room temperature.
I've noticed a sudden switch from "this is useful knowledge" to "it's not the knowledge we teach". Was it intentional, or did you just forget what you wrote in previous post?
But being able to estimate relative flammability / solubility / reactivity is quite an important part of chemistry.
I was never taught that trick. I mean, I was with basic elements, but not with organic compounds. Also, I'm pretty sure knowing relative flammability of different organic compounds has pretty limited applications, except maybe for common hydrocarbons.
You really have no fucking clue at all how our lessons work.
And you have no fucking clue at all how our lessons work. But instead of raising a question whether German and Polish schools are very different, you decided to treat me like another angsty teenager who doesn't realize not everybody is like them. When instead of showing what I say doesn't apply to German schools, you decided to defend the practices I criticized, I made the very respectful assumption that you know what you're talking about and you have first hand experience with a system that mostly focuses on remembering raw facts that are not directly useful for majority of people, because that's what I thought you're defending.
As I said: YOU had a bad experience and now you broadly overestimate.
You also said that I'm an idiot who hates the idea of schools teaching things I don't personally like. Look, maybe if you didn't dismiss everything I say on the basis I'm dumb and egocentric, we'd have a much more pleasant conversation.
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
it really sounds like France got it right
Thanks for making my day!
Listing every WTF in the French education system would require dozens of pages. It's an often-discussed issue here.
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@admiral_p said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Cue admiral_p complaining about ass pulled numbers.
Hey! If you're going to quote me, at least tag me!
Some people hate being tagged in discussions they don't participate in. I'll try to remember you're not one of them.
And yeah, you do that ass pulled numbers thingie a lot of the time. It's a bit dumb. Please stop.
You'd rather me say "vast majority" every time? I mean, it's quite obvious I don't mean to be precise with those percentages.
The thing is that "your vast majority" is what you think is the vast majority. We don't know whether that's true.
And anyway, you're wrong, (I wonder how old you are, because this is the kind of stuff I used to think when I was younger too)
I'm pretty sure your younger self didn't think students could use more presentation skills classes.
...so?
because, apart from the fact that you never know what you will need in life
Is the school the only point in life where you're able to learn new things? Should we really try to prepare all kids for literally every situation possible, just in case they become rescue cave divers or CNC operators? You might think I'm pulling reductio ad absurdum, but I'm pretty sure there are far more CNC operators than there are paleontologists - and we already allocate many hours to teaching the latter.
No, but school is a very good place to shape and form "the future decision-makers".
and having school shape you as narrowly as you'd like
Bro do you even read my posts? Have you missed the part where I've said schools should cover even broader range of topics than they do now?
But in shallower depth. So it's all trivia.
but you also need people to apply themselves even in things they do not necessarily like doing
Hmm... I don't remember arguing in favor of only teaching material that the students like. Care to provide a quote on that?
Can't be arsed going back. But I remember you saying that people shouldn't be forced to learn stuff they will never need. Such mindset will probably believe that people will dislike learning stuff they will never need and find it such a chore. Being opposed to this will mean, at least in part, that forcing people to do chores they don't want to do is bad.
On the other hand, gratuitously accusing @Rhywden of defending his caste was in extremely poor taste
What about treating me as edgy teenager who'd rather if school didn't exist? Is it in good taste?
Who said I'm treating you as an edgy teenager who'd rather school didn't exist?
(A pointer: when you use "rather" with subordinate clauses, you use subjective pronouns and the past simple, so it's "You'd rather I said", not "You'd rather me say". You don't use "if" either).
-
@Gąska Dude, YOU were the one doing the broad and sweeping statements. So you don't get to complain if others do that as well!
Funny how you promptly blow a gasket when you discover that, funnily enough, your experience isn't universal. Might I remind you that you NEVER specified your complaints to be Polish? In which case I'd have told you: Figures.
It's almost as if someone has told you that before. Repeatedly.
-
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska Dude, YOU were the one doing the broad and sweeping statements. So you don't get to complain if others do that as well!
I could say the exact same thing to you, word for word, and be exactly just as correct. But unlike you, I didn't dismiss your side of argument on the basis I've heard similar things before coming from kids who have no clue about life.
Funny how you promptly blow a gasket when you discover that, funnily enough, your experience isn't universal.
Funny how it took ME for YOU to discover MY experience isn't universal.
Might I remind you that you NEVER specified your complaints to be Polish?
Might I remind you that I was very clear that my experience isn't only about Poland?
It's almost as if someone has told you that before. Repeatedly.
No one said that until after I've said that myself. Definitely not repeatedly. But what did happen repeatedly is you treating me like a child just because I dared to say something bad about education.
-
@jmp said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Suffice to say I think I disagree with almost every statement you've just made.
Forgive me for using a controversial topic with a large amount of cognitive bias surrounding it. It was there to make a point, not to create a tangent.
There are a few things in there that are technically true. (For example, we have no control Earth to make a full scientific experiment, and that we're relying heavily on extrapolation).
So, if you disagree with everything, you're just throwing the baby out with the bath water.
And that attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. You have a cognitive bias that prevents you from separating information if there exists a few key points you disagree with.
This is exactly what's leading to skepticism, which drives people away from the education system.
If people aren't allowed to question the established information, even if they're notably wrong in their questioning, then the inherent human quality of human discovery and curiosity is broken.
Not only is this making people skeptical of science, it's dissuading people from becoming educated and harming the public in the process.
I'm not saying we allow people to form whatever conclusion they want, but we should allow whatever skepticism they have to be treated with respect.
We've changed "skeptic" to "denier" which is encroaching on using terms like "blasphemy". Do you see the trend towards dystopian control of information?
People have even suggested imprisonment of climate change deniers.
-
@Gąska Yes, I treat you like a child because you're pulling this shit of "Oh, EVERYONE does that!" all the time on here.
You ever wonder why in this thread almost noone is on your side?
-
What is this slappy fight even about. No I'm not going to read it. I am going to post this GIF though:
-
@admiral_p said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@admiral_p said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Cue admiral_p complaining about ass pulled numbers.
Hey! If you're going to quote me, at least tag me!
Some people hate being tagged in discussions they don't participate in. I'll try to remember you're not one of them.
And yeah, you do that ass pulled numbers thingie a lot of the time. It's a bit dumb. Please stop.
You'd rather me say "vast majority" every time? I mean, it's quite obvious I don't mean to be precise with those percentages.
The thing is that "your vast majority" is what you think is the vast majority.
I mean, if I didn't think that, it wouldn't make sense for me to say that, right?
We don't know whether that's true.
Well, when you have a pack of pills that says "paracetamol", you don't know whether that's true either. But it doesn't prevent you from taking them when your head hurts.
And anyway, you're wrong, (I wonder how old you are, because this is the kind of stuff I used to think when I was younger too)
I'm pretty sure your younger self didn't think students could use more presentation skills classes.
...so?
I take that as a yes. In this case, when you said "this is the kind of stuff I used to think when I was younger", you were wrong.
because, apart from the fact that you never know what you will need in life
Is the school the only point in life where you're able to learn new things? Should we really try to prepare all kids for literally every situation possible, just in case they become rescue cave divers or CNC operators? You might think I'm pulling reductio ad absurdum, but I'm pretty sure there are far more CNC operators than there are paleontologists - and we already allocate many hours to teaching the latter.
No, but school is a very good place to shape and form "the future decision-makers".
A future decision maker doesn't need to know the local succession line between years 1400 and 1800. If we want to make good decision makers, how about teaching stuff that will let them make good decisions?
and having school shape you as narrowly as you'd like
Bro do you even read my posts? Have you missed the part where I've said schools should cover even broader range of topics than they do now?
But in shallower depth. So it's all trivia.
How so? One doesn't follow from another.but you also need people to apply themselves even in things they do not necessarily like doing
Hmm... I don't remember arguing in favor of only teaching material that the students like. Care to provide a quote on that?
Can't be arsed going back. But I remember you saying that people shouldn't be forced to learn stuff they will never need.
Do you know the difference between "need" and "like"? Also, you missed the word "likely". It might not sound important, but it really changes the game when you move from personal stories to probabilities over whole populaces.
Such mindset will probably believe that people will dislike learning stuff they will never need and find it such a chore.
How about asking me if that's my mindset, instead of assuming that since it's likely to be, it must be for sure?
Being opposed to this will mean, at least in part, that forcing people to do chores they don't want to do is bad.
No, it really doesn't. These two often come together, but there's no logical implication one way or the other. And just to be extra clear, I don't agree with either of those statements.
On the other hand, gratuitously accusing @Rhywden of defending his caste was in extremely poor taste
What about treating me as edgy teenager who'd rather if school didn't exist? Is it in good taste?
Who said I'm treating you as an edgy teenager who'd rather school didn't exist?
I was referring to @Rhywden. I thought it was obvious from context, since the statement you've had issue with was also directed at @Rhywden.
(A pointer: when you use "rather" with subordinate clauses, you use subjective pronouns and the past simple, so it's "You'd rather I said", not "You'd rather me say". You don't use "if" either).
I used "rather" as regular verb in infinitive form. I didn't realize it's not a valid verb. Thank you for this opportunity to learn.
-
@Rhywden said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska Yes, I treat you like a child because you're pulling this shit of "Oh, EVERYONE does that!" all the time on here.
Am I? Have you already forgot who pulled that one first? It was just a couple hours ago FFS!
You ever wonder why in this thread almost noone is on your side?
Miscommunication, mostly. Also, opportunity to make fun of someone and get upvoted for it. So adult.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@topspin said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
Agreed. But some informations are more important than others - like, knowing there was a war is more important than knowing there was a battle. Curricula of all school subjects are overloaded with the latter kind.
You've argued the exact opposite previously when I asked if you think there is or isn't anything more valuable to learn than "random bullshit I just made up".
I didn't? All I've said is that the bar of how valuable something must be to appear in school curriculum is currently extremely low.
I've argued that there's stupid fringe opinions that aren't valuable to teach (because I can make up countless more of them on the stop) and you replied there's no reason not to teach them, as everything else being taught is equally useless. Or, at least that's how it came across when you said that learning about bacteria and other things is as useless as "random bullshit" is.
To wit:
@topspin said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
At what point do you stop teaching "there's a fringe opinion on everything"?
"Some people believe Hitler was actually a Japanese Hentai-robot."@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@topspin at no point.
@topspin said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@topspin said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska Your schooling must have been incredibly awful if you think there's nothing more valuable to teach than "Some people believe Hitler was actually a Japanese Hentai-robot."
Internal structure of bacteria is just as valuable. And I've had several exams on it.
I think it's immensely more valuable, but then YMMV.
Also, the point wasn't to think of something that's as useless as "random bullshit", but of anything that's more useful.
-
@Gąska said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
You'd rather me say "vast majority" every time? I mean, it's quite obvious I don't mean to be precise with those percentages.
The thing is that "your vast majority" is what you think is the vast majority.
I mean, if I didn't think that, it wouldn't make sense for me to say that, right?
But we don't actually know if that's true, or even if it is (in this case), maybe those people will find out that what they learned back in school, even what they thought would have been useless, isn't so useless.
We don't know whether that's true.
Well, when you have a pack of pills that says "paracetamol", you don't know whether that's true either. But it doesn't prevent you from taking them when your head hurts.
And anyway, you're wrong, (I wonder how old you are, because this is the kind of stuff I used to think when I was younger too)
I'm pretty sure your younger self didn't think students could use more presentation skills classes.
...so?
I take that as a yes. In this case, when you said "this is the kind of stuff I used to think when I was younger", you were wrong.
What does this have to do with "school teaches lots of useless facts"?
No, but school is a very good place to shape and form "the future decision-makers".
A future decision maker doesn't need to know the local succession line between years 1400 and 1800. If we want to make good decision makers, how about teaching stuff that will let them make good decisions?
Then all history before, say, the Renaissance (or that's too early too?) is useless? Some knowledge doesn't have to be immediately or directly useful. Understanding geopolitical dynamics in the Middle Ages allows us to better understand how they evolved through time.
and having school shape you as narrowly as you'd like
Bro do you even read my posts? Have you missed the part where I've said schools should cover even broader range of topics than they do now?
But in shallower depth. So it's all trivia.
How so? One doesn't follow from another.Yes it does, if you don't delve enough into a subject, all you know is good for Trivial Pursuit.
but you also need people to apply themselves even in things they do not necessarily like doing
Hmm... I don't remember arguing in favor of only teaching material that the students like. Care to provide a quote on that?
Can't be arsed going back. But I remember you saying that people shouldn't be forced to learn stuff they will never need.
Do you know the difference between "need" and "like"? Also, you missed the word "likely". It might not sound important, but it really changes the game when you move from personal stories to probabilities over whole populaces.
Who are you to say what you actually need? You're in a line of work that might not strictly require you to know certain things. But for others it is different. And culture (eg. studying art) may not be immediately useful for anybody who won't be an artist or a museum curator in their lives, but it is still useful because it broadens your horizons. I like the fact that when I see an old-style church, I can somewhat trace it back to a style, therefore to a period, by looking at certain elements. I won't make any money out of this, but I like it and I might not have appreciated it if someone hadn't (force?) fed me the information back then.
Such mindset will probably believe that people will dislike learning stuff they will never need and find it such a chore.
How about asking me if that's my mindset, instead of assuming that since it's likely to be, it must be for sure?
Being opposed to this will mean, at least in part, that forcing people to do chores they don't want to do is bad.
No, it really doesn't. These two often come together, but there's no logical implication one way or the other. And just to be extra clear, I don't agree with either of those statements.
All right.
FWIW, I find it vain to teach high school students English literature, when they can't read nor speak nor write the language. That's how it is currently and I'd do away with it because it ends up in rote learning passages out of textbooks with no clear idea of what you're actually reading. Only exception, the Liceo Linguistico, where they actually have a "lettore" (native speaker teacher, who only teaches pronunciation, vocabulary, speaking skills, grammar, etc.), so they're better equipped to deal with learning about Shakespeare in English (and reading 16/17th-century English too).
-
@Gąska Your mom is so adult.
-
@Gribnit said in Wikipedia is a bunch of hobbyists recreating the world's most bloated bureaucracy:
@Gąska Your mom is so adult.
You wish you had one too?
