Do you agree with the division of arts and sciences in high school? The reason should be perfect!

High school arts and sciences should not be divided into subjects.

Whether the arts and sciences in senior high schools are divided into subjects can at least be regarded as an important part of the educational reform, and it has also become a hot topic at present. In this regard, my view is that "high school arts and sciences should not be divided into subjects."

The so-called division of arts and sciences basically refers to the practice of artificially dividing students into "liberal arts students" who study humanities and "science students" who study natural sciences in the second year of high school. In this way, the comment that "liberal arts students don't understand nature and science students don't understand humanities" is a bit radical, but it also reflects some social realities. Before starting my personal discussion, let me explain a basic logical relationship: from the perspective of teaching, students who study "literature" can be exposed to "reason" without dividing subjects, and vice versa; In the case of dividing subjects, "literature" can't touch "reason", and vice versa. Of course, the interdisciplinary self-study of the educated is not in the discussion.

I advocate that arts and sciences should not be divided into disciplines for three reasons:

First, "regardless of arts and sciences" is more conducive to improving students' comprehensive quality. At present, recent college graduates are generally criticized for their poor comprehensive quality and slow integration into society. The reason is that their education is single, which leads to their slow role transformation. From the source, the narrow vision caused by professionalism can be said to be one of the reasons. The specialization of universities is the direct cause, but the division of arts and sciences in high schools is also one of the accomplices. As far as education itself is concerned, it can't be called humanistic thinking without accurate and rational thinking, and scientific theory without humanistic care will be paranoid, so students can't forcibly "divide arts and sciences" if they want to have higher quality.

Second, "no distinction between arts and sciences" is the necessity of social environment. High school, regardless of arts and sciences, actually depends on the college entrance examination and indirectly depends on employment after graduation. Under the condition of planned economy, the state uniformly distributes college graduates, and the destination of students is fixed. In theory, we only need to determine the direction according to the plan, such as producing ordinary goods. Then it is justified to implement the "separation of arts and sciences" for high school students as soon as possible. However, under the market economy, it is impossible for students to make accurate "arrangements" for employment, so it is inevitable for them to learn more widely and have stronger adaptability.

Third, "regardless of arts and sciences" reflects the respect for students themselves. Generally speaking, senior high school students are all under 18 and belong to minors. Based on the poor judgment of minors, "dividing subjects" is the "judgment" or "induction" of parents and teachers in most cases, which can be regarded as a "life plan" for high school students, but it is better to protect their rights and let them try their best to exercise their power on their behalf. No matter how "smart" other people's judgments are, it is better to let your choice reflect your basic respect for people.

Fourth, "regardless of arts and sciences" is technically fairer. Theoretically speaking, not dividing subjects gives opportunities to people who want to be fully educated, while dividing subjects is the opposite; For educators who are willing to accept "single subject", not dividing subjects does not prevent them from focusing on one aspect of development.

The established will be broken, and I also refute some reasons for advocating "separation of arts and sciences."

First, there is no logical relationship between the view that "arts and sciences are not divided and the burden on students is increased". Some viewpoints say that if the arts and sciences are not divided into subjects, the courses that students need to study will naturally increase, so the learning burden will naturally increase, which is not in line with the social common sense of "reducing the burden on students", so the idea of "dividing the arts and sciences into subjects" is completely unaware of the source. How stressful is it? Because of the fierce competition, it is the fierce competition of "going to college" that determines the current burden of students. In recent years, with the expansion of enrollment, this pressure should be reduced, and the burden on students should be reduced, but this is not the case. Because the employment competition of college graduates is intensified, the competition for "going to a good university" is more intense and the pressure is naturally greater. The key to students' burden is to artificially divide "key" colleges and universities, give key support and over-concentrate educational resources!

Second, the view that "the arts and sciences are not divided, so that students have no learning focus" is putting the cart before the horse. Students' choice of "literature" or "science" is the reason for the division of arts and sciences, not the reason for choosing because of "division". It is normal for students to have personal preference for a subject, because if they are really interested in a subject, they will have the motivation to study in depth. If students have no motivation, then the division of subjects will not play a role of "highlighting key points" There are two ways to cultivate talents: one is to encourage exploration and explore key points on the basis of independent hobbies, so as to make a breakthrough; One is to set priorities and achieve success through compulsory training. Which is more suitable for most people? More respect for people? It goes without saying.

Third, the view that "arts and sciences are not divided into disciplines and are unfair to special students" is a false proposition. The basis of this theory in reality is, for example, in two courses, A got 100, B got 20, with an average score of 60, B got 60, with an average score of 60. If you score, it will be easy to highlight A's "specialty" in subject A, so as to find and cultivate talents early ("talents are people who have made outstanding contributions in one or several fields"). However, in the above, A is regarded as a "specialist" and B is regarded as a "generalist", so it is impossible to judge which is better or worse. To put it to the extreme: A has two characteristics, namely "genius" and "idiot", while B is simply "ordinary". Which situation is better for him? Can't judge! Of course, from the utilitarian point of view of the whole society, "talent is a person who has made outstanding contributions in one or several fields" and "genius is not an idiot" is not important because they can complement each other in the social environment, so A is more "useful". However, this is more like "using" than "cultivating"!