To show not everything is clear, there has been research showing that payday loans might make sense in certain cases, and not all people who use them are idiots. When someone is close to the limit on their credit cards, and wants a buffer in case of an emergency, like a car dying, a payday loan might effectively increase their credit, even if expensively. That doesn’t argue against regulation, or even banning them, but taking out a payday loan might be a rational choice in certain situations.
You make a good point.
I believe topics like payday loans should include the dark side. In HS I was taught the various forms of insurance policies that are available, but the teacher did not address the value proposition of life insurance. Only 2% of life insurance policies are paid on death. It’s a very profitable industry.
Teaching critical thinking to children is touchy. The easy examples are all third rails.
What happens to the other 98%? Are suggesting malfeasance and companies refusing to pay legit claims?
I’ve had several short term policies over the years where I fully expected to outlive the term. And did so. I see nothing rip-off about that. I also bought and paid for homeowner’s insurance all the years I owned a house. Never made a major claim. No rip-off there.
And some of us hold both positions simultaneously, with a “should” or two carefully inserted.
One argument for making people read “the classics” is it will help them think about different perspectives, ethics, politics, and empathy. That work is crucial and it can be done in many other ways, including reading other authors that many would find more accessible and interesting.
Some of the practical stuff suggested here can literally be taught in an afternoon: how to interact with police, depending on your status, income, and race; the dangers of debt; save money; etc. So let’s do that and spent the rest of the term on art and music and cooperative group dynamics!
I have just read 14th century advice from a merchant that gives excellent advice about staying out of debt. Clearly successive generations have not all been getting the message. Why is that, we might ask. Seems unrealistic to blame schools and teachers.
What percentage of policies are term policies? Probably a lot, since people who get life insurances as a perk of employment always get term policies.
A policy not paying off does not mean it is a rip off. The value of the policy is roughly its value times the probability of getting that value. If this is greater than the cost, it is a good deal, even if you screw up by not dying.
You have to make a similar calculation to justify the cost of putting extra hardware in a chip to reduce its failure rate. All this stuff might be a bit advanced for high school students, though.
No problem, I wasn’t referring to term policies. The business proposition of whole life is that the policy will be paid on for a period of time and dropped. Nothing sneaky or illegal, but it is the nature of the business. Something the consumer should be aware of.
??? My wife got a whole life policy when very young, and at the moment the returns are enough to pay the premium, so she hasn’t had to pay on it for decades. The downside is that they payout is trivial. Is the idea that people either can’t pay or forget to pay after a while and so lose the policy?
We read Julius Caesar in AP English, IIRC, 11th or 12th grade. Also some Beowulf, and a bit of Chaucer..
What’s the problem with that?
Right now, I pay for a life insurance policy, because I have young kids and a mortgage; and while my wife and I both work, I’m the primary breadwinner. My wife and kids would be SOL if something happened to me at this time.
In 20 years, my mortgage will be nearly paid down and the kids will be long out of the house. If I play my cards right, I’ll also have some savings. If anything happened to me at that point, my wife and kids would be fine. So, I wouldn’t really need to pay for life insurance at that point.
I’m paying the insurance premium not because I expect to get my money back, but because I want to put a floor on how badly fucked over my family will be should the worst happen to me.
How am I being ripped off?
Getting back to the OP topic, I don’t know to what extent this is already being taught in today’s schools, but there also absolutely must be a heavy priority on critical thinking. Especially in today’s era of fake news, AI, deepfakes, polarized politics, “alternative facts,” bias/prejudice, conspiracy theories, etc., kids need to be trained to spot the dozens or hundreds of fallacies people are bombarded by these days.
I offered to purchase a policy (an option I was taught in school). The company declined, admitting that they made their money when people cannot continue to make payments and the company keeps payments to date.
You are not if it is a term policy.
How do you teach critical thinking and avoid slewing sacred cows? Advertising, Religions, Politicians, Traditions?
The world runs on bullshit. Critical thinking will totally undermine it.
The idea is that the premiums don’t get paid for some reason - they can’t afford it, they forget, someone else bought the policy and died, and now no-one knows about it , whatever. My MIL bought a life insurance policy on my husband before he was 18 years old. The only reason he knew about the policy was because his mother wasn’t literate in English and he handled her bills every month until she died - if she had handled her own bills, it certainly would have lapsed because for cultural reasons, she never would have told him it existed.
Agreed. This is the problem with saying “parents aren’t teaching their kids X, so have teachers do it”. Then teachers end up stepping all over parents’ toes, and they don’t know individual children or their situation in the same way parents do.
This illustrates my point that it’s better to stay away from teaching anything political. If parents want to show their kids capitalist propaganda, that’s up to them, but no one should be taking advantage of compulsory, taxpayer-funded education to push their favoured ideology.
Lol, I remember hearing about that.
From what I have heard, the focus on impact factors has acted to reduce the quality of scientific research, by encouraging the publication of novel and surprising (and thus less likely to be true) findings, and discouraging the publication of studies with null findings, and direct replications of earlier research.
But regardless, the issue is that there is no shortcut: to evaluate the quality of academic research, you have to know a decent amount about academic research. To evaluate academic journals, you need the background knowledge in research, plus specific knowledge about journals. Otherwise, you won’t know what to look for.
This, however, seems doable, and advertising would make a reasonably non-controversial target, as well as it being useful in itself for students to learn how advertising works on them.
It can be told in an afternoon. Whether it can be taught that quickly, or at all, is a different question.
I’ve seen lots of people say that we need to teach critical thinking in schools, and I’ve never once heard anyone say we shouldn’t (some people do oppose it, but they don’t say so out loud). But the problem is, how? I think the only way to teach critical thinking is to demonstrate it, repeatedly, in many real-life situations. Teachers don’t spend enough time with students to really be able to fully do that. I think that the only people who can teach children critical thinking skills are their parent figures.
And the problem there is that what’s political keeps on getting redefined. I will teach my students about anthropogenic climate change, for instance, because it’s an established fact… but a lot of folks would decry me doing so on grounds that it’s “political”.
I think critical thinking shouldn’t be taught as a separate subject in schools inasmuch as it’s likely to be taught ineffectively, and be politically contentious. It’s even possible that it could backfire by making kids uniformly skeptical of everything. If you can find a way around these problems then I’d be in favour. Teaching aspects of it as a part of individual subjects, eg by talking about sources in history, seems like a better bet for now.
Also true, unfortunately.
The way I would teach students how to do taxes is show the pros and cons of each tax software, HR Block and a tax accountant. And getting back to financial literacy (how to buy a car, etc.) if Youtube and TicTok are any indicator of reality, it really is not a learning issue. It’s a “No, you do not have to buy that truck that you can’t afford for $80,000.” issue.
Then the question is what do you drop to make room for it? And will we have a bunch of tiktoks in 5 years complaining schools never showed them the beauty of poetry or the world around us in Earth Science? Honestly, I think part of this is people like to complain about public education and no matter what we teach it will never be the right things.
Which not co-incidentally cover the entrance requirements for many of the 4 year colleges.
Which can (and maybe should) be taught in any math class teaching probability.
See above. The issue is not that people get payday loans because they don’t understand how math & money work. It’s because I gotsta have the new iPhone and I got no cash OR my job doesn’t pay enough to save an emergency fund and the car broke down. Then to absolve myself of responsibility for making a poor financial choice: The loan people are scammers and my teacher should have taught me not to make poor financial decisions = not my fault for signing a paper where the terms are clearly laid out.
Agreed. When I taught financial algebra, my job was not to tell them what to do but how to make an informed decision. If you insist on increasing the term on your car loan to have a monthly payment you can afford, then at least you will know what that does to your total interest paid.
I’m of the opinion that we really ought to bifurcate our educational track fairly early on. There’s a lot of stuff that’s germane for a kid going on to college and a white collar job, and there’s a lot of stuff that isn’t . And the same is true for a kid not expecting to go to college, and to graduate and hang drywall. I’m not convinced that “exposure to X subject” is a valid enough reason to spend that much effort (wasted, IMO) leading the horses to water, when you can’t make them drink.
The trick would be to figure out what’s pertinent for both, and what isn’t pertinent for each. That kid aspiring to the Drywallistic Arts isn’t going to need poetry, advanced math, literature, art history, advanced biology, etc… That kid should probably get taught critical thinking, basic adult financial knowledge (insurance, loans, interest, etc…), more civics, a sort of “here’s how societal institutions work” course (how the legal system works, when you need a lawyer, why you need a real will drafted by an actual lawyer, how not to get ripped off by car dealers, and so forth).
Similarly, that college and white collar bound kid is probably going to get taught all that “how institutions work” stuff by their parents, and will benefit from the rest of the academic stuff like literature, poetry, advanced math, and so forth.
I mean, if that drywall hanging guy has a yen for poetry, there are libraries and stuff, and he can always go look it up on his own. But forcing him to read Emily Dickinson when he’s 14 isn’t really doing anyone involved much good.
Red Cross First Aid and CPR.
I got that in JROTC class, and I’ve valued it ever since.
I got a course in Logic & Critical Thinking by a substitute teacher, in the Sixties.
Short, but it strongly impacted my life.