Seriously? If unschooling were so great 3rd world countries would be dominating the world.
Creativity is domain specific. Walking around the woods won't help you be creative in solving math/engineering/science problems. You need a strong background in the subject, and to see how other people solved similar problems.
I feel bad for these kids as their future is being pigeon-holed. Who's going to hire someone who's educational experience is walking around the woods unsupervised?
The reason developing countries aren't "dominating the world" is because of a bunch of things, and the life of a kid from a developing country is very far from the life of an unschooled kid in the west.
Unschooled kids (and I know a lot of them) in the west are usually fairly privileges. If not economically (which definitely isn't always the case) then they are privileged to have intelligent and thoughtful parents who have the time, energy and interest to try to nurture a love of learning in them.
I also think you're wrong in regards to creativity. Creativity isn't domain specific, but being able to apply your creativity does take a lot of domain knowledge. You can have endless domain knowledge, and not an original thought in your head.
There are plenty of opportunities for unschooled kids to enter the mainstream education system, if they need certification of some kind to work in their field of interest. I know a good number of unschooled kids who became biologists, computer scientists, etc. by going to college/university when it became relevant.
> You can have endless domain knowledge, and not an original thought in your head.
I hear this a lot, and don't think it's at all true. It's pretty difficult to get to phd-level background in an area without having some thoughts no one else has explored yet. In fact I'm not sure it's even possible.
I would like to clarify that this article is not representative of all unschooling, I'm not an expert on the subject, but my best friend was essentially unschooled until eighth grade. His parents ran a biology lab and just took him with them to work and let him go. He quickly became interested in the computer system in the lab and developed a lifelong love of computing. At age 6 he installed Linux on a computer for the first time. By 14 he was employed by the lab as a sysadmin and also did some bioinformatics for them.
The kids in the article might go on to a life in agriculture like their parents, or they might develop an interest in carpentry, as per the structures in the forest. I know that to many people on HN such a lifestyle might be very foreign, but there's nothing wrong with it, and if one is happy in that lifestyle than they are much better off than the many people who were pigeonholed into engineering or medicine or law and find themselves unhappy.
>I feel bad for these kids as their future is being pigeon-holed.
For what it's worth, your opponent's argument shares the very same sentiment. After all, the schools in question all offer little appreciation for self-directed specialization.
Albert Hofmann (legendary chemist who synthesized LSD) and Shigeru Miyamoto (godfather of Nintendo who created Mario), both cite walking around and playing in the woods freely and unsupervised as a child being transformative experiences which (they believe) led to their later life accomplishments.
No, I meant what I wrote. Your inability to understand context is not a sign of intelligence or education (especially when the context is from your own post).
Oh, and lighten up. Did you not think it was funny that you made a grammatical error in a post deriding others' education?
Creativity is domain specific. Walking around the woods won't help you be creative in solving math/engineering/science problems. You need a strong background in the subject, and to see how other people solved similar problems.
I feel bad for these kids as their future is being pigeon-holed. Who's going to hire someone who's educational experience is walking around the woods unsupervised?