If a lot of students want to play chess, then that's great, and I agree that there should be chess at schools, but as an afterschool or during recess type of thing, not as a required subject that everyone has to do and be graded on.
Chess as a school subject
Sort:
Deranged wrote:
falling-upwards wrote:
Dude, you are so wrong, remember, correlation implies causation! There are absolutly no hidden factors that could bungle those studies. I mean, seriuosly, bro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
I think sarcasm recognition should be a mandatory class.
echecs06 wrote:
Zuud08 wrote:
please let me know which schools in the USA or anywhere in the world require chess as a mandatory school subject - I will send my kids to one of these schools - please do not think I'm joking... I look forward to your replies. Many thanks!
Switzerland, Germany and France to only cite a few.
I am fairly confident this is untrue.
In the film Innocent moves (the josh waitzkin story one, book was "searching for Bobby Fisher") one of the dads, i think, refers to sending his kid to a school that has a chess lesson built in
@oinquarki: What do you think about chess as an elective? I like the idea of having the option open should kids decide that they want to take a class like that. It shouldn't be imposed on everyone, but I'd like to see it as a by-choice elective. Of course, I'm quite biased here, and there many big problems in our educational system today (funding, underperformance vs other countries, etc.). I think it'd be cool though. :)
That would be totally cool, but I'm still not sure if even having it as a class is a great idea.
It would probably end up being just another subject I flunked.
Why dont we have poker at school as well
poker teaches real life stuff. how to read people, make educated guesses/decisions, learn to keep a blank expression...all stuff I used in my short life
Tell that to the PTA moms of the world who don't want their innocent children spoiled by contact with reality.
Apr 20, 2011
0
#32
tarrasch wrote:
Literature is even more worthless than chess, and still it's taught everywhere around the world.
Thanks for the amazing insight...where were you when I was getting my BA in English Lit? Thanks for the enlightening opinion about Shakespeare, Cervantes, Dante, Milton, Joyce, Dostoyevsky, GBS, Homer, Virgil and all the rest of those time-wasting scribblers!
As far as chess being a mandatory school subject goes, what makes chess any better than poker or bridge? BTW anyone who says "because there's no luck involved" doesn't know anything about chess, poker or bridge.
I think schools in the US need to concentrate on the 3 Rs as well as history not made up by the TX Bd of Ed or Fox News. Personally I'd rather see art and music taught ahead of chess, as I've read that some schools are dropping these "worthless subjects" due to budgetary constraints.
NimzoRoy wrote:
tarrasch wrote:
Literature is even more worthless than chess, and still it's taught everywhere around the world.
Thanks for the amazing insight...where were you when I was getting my BA in English Lit? Thanks for the enlightening opinion about Shakespeare, Cervantes, Dante, Milton, Joyce, Dostoyevsky, GBS, Homer, Virgil and all the rest of those time-wasting scribblers!
As far as chess being a mandatory school subject goes, what makes chess any better than poker or bridge? BTW anyone who says "because there's no luck involved" doesn't know anything about chess, poker or bridge.
I think schools in the US need to concentrate on the 3 Rs as well as history not made up by the TX Bd of Ed or Fox News. Personally I'd rather see art and music taught ahead of chess, as I've read that some schools are dropping these "worthless subjects" due to budgetary constraints.
I think you have answered the question, nothing in chess is influenced by factors beyond either of the players control.
Furthermore poker is gambling game, which would never be taught in schools.
Surely you're joking. The entire purpose of the game of poker is to gamble. You can't play poker without gambling. This is an important distinction.
But the idea of encourageing a game like poker, which is about taking risks, is not a game they would ever encourage in schools.
Apr 20, 2011
0
#36
Reb wrote:
Speaking of schools and whats required...... is PE ( physical education ) still required ? I would have to say from the looks of many kids these days its not. I used to love PE as long as it wasnt cold outside....
Yup, still required.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Karl_ wrote:
I mean, shouldn't schools prepare children for real adult life, not shelter them from the harsh realities of it?
Karl_ wrote:
LordNazgul wrote:
Well, it's possible to play poker without money, or using fake money - I played it like that as kid.
Yes, you don't need real money to play poker. In theory, all games and sports are a form of competition (which is a kind of gambling anyway), someone wins and someone loses. Just like in real life. I think they should teach more life skills at schools, not let the kids find them out on the streets, or when they enter the work force. I mean, shouldn't schools prepare children for real adult life, not shelter them from the harsh realities of it?
Even with play money poker's still gambling, and playing other sports for the glory of the win is not. The notion that it is is just silly.
As for schools preparing children for the harsh realities of life: Yes, but at a deliberate, measured pace that they can handle.
PE is required in all NYC schools.