school is pretty much just actively harmful, especially for boys. Sit down and shut the fuck up for 8 hours isn’t always the easiest thing for a seven year old, and drugging them if they have issues with this is asinine, but around 1 in 5 boys have to take drugs (adderral, Ritalin, etc) as children to cope with schooling.
Millions and millions and millions of people on both the left and right would agree with this. There was never a more politically agreeable statement than "We shouldn't be drugging little kids because they won't sit still."
On top of that children spending most of their waking life in a social system that’s never replicated again—everyone being exactly the same age and competing for the attention of one authority figure—probably isn’t good preparation for life.
I disagree to an extent. In a workplace setting, you have a job to do. And you must do that job to the specifications that the boss wants while cooperating with your peers regardless of their ages. Imparting this trait is an outsized function of post-industrial pedagogy.
And homework must be abolished.
Definitely disagree. School is "structured time", in that you must do X because there's somebody breathing down your neck and making you do X. But it doesn't teach you how to manage "unstructured time" when there's nobody around to make you do stuff. It doesn't teach you self-control when nobody's watching. But homework does.
Of course, there's plenty of room to argue that students receive too much homework, but homework in principle is a good thing.
The best thing that can be said about the system is that it if it’s done well it truly does prepare you for the academic life of college
This is what schools nowadays are designed to do: prepare students for college. Standardized curriculum and exams are in place to prepare students for passing SAT/ACT and having a uniform baseline of knowledge upon admission to a college. Nobody would argue that it's designed to adequately prepare you for the real world.
I considered making a separate thread about this, but I think that the "classical education" model could be a much better fit for some households. In the past, you learned Greek and Latin and then studied authors like Euclid** and Aristotle in their original language. It was incredibly rigorous and it also taught you how to think. This was how upper-class Victorian preppy kids learned and then they went on to become the next generation of elites.
There are reasons why this isn't widely done today; namely, its difficulty would mean a lot of students don't make the cut and don't graduate. But if you were a committed parent who could force your kids to study hard and make passing grades, it could produce well-rounded citizens immune to fads and myopic propaganda while also setting them up with the discipline to accomplish anything they set their minds to.
**For context: Euclid's Elements was the textbook for geometry well into the 20th century and is still sometimes used in classrooms today, albeit in updated English with illustrations. This 2,300 year old book was so brilliant that it would still satisfy the needs of high school geometry instruction in the year 2022. Euclid's geometry emphasized mathematical proofs, which many classrooms still do today but is being slowly phased out in practice.