Theoretically, That is.

I want to read literary theory, but where on earth to begin? And about theatre. And I think I should start reading Norwegian again, my written Norwegian is god-awful - and I think I shall write something about why I dislike Vinje.


It is no secret that I think Norwegian school is, for the most part, useless. A school based on the notion that everyone is alike and has the same abilities, is bound to fail. While learning is partly about good technique discipline, it is also about talent and ability. Genetic disposition and environment, leave some children more favourably disposed for mathematics others for languages. Schools teaching at a middle level leave the above- and below-average students bored and helpless. If an above-average student asks for more challenging work, he is awarded with more work on the same level. And in the instance that someone needs help, the teacher does not have time enough to explain as thoroughly as needed.

It leaves everyone but those of average skill, accomplishment or motivation out. It continues on, with upper secondary being mandatory in all but law. There is a too high percentage of people taking higher education, and yet we put everyone through upper secondary? What could have been a stimulating environment for those interested in higher education turns into a kindergarten, where Norway's 18-year-olds are kept to make sure they know their advanced Maths when they end up sitting behind a counter.

On the other hand, I made a scary discovery today. We discussed society's development and how it turned into what we have today, and it struck me that I have learned so much these past 6 months that I should have been taught long ago. The workings of politics, how wars and crises spur development, for instance. As it turns out, my disinterest in politics has simply been due to lack of knowledge. I even read papers with interest, these days, because I was taught how to read them! Not directly, but through social anthropology and history.

How can anyone make sense of what goes on around them without having been introduced to these things? Much less take part in debates? But then the question of whether or not everyone should participate arises. Democracy, which in reality, does not function as well as we would like because everyone does not have the same competence? Or centralism, which leaves the competency in charge? Is the competency not already in charge? Because most of us do not possess, or, in the even that we possess it, use, the necessary competence those in charge are left to govern on more or less their own premises (simplifying things horribly, and leaving media and the judiciary, for instance, out of the equation) - taking the play that is politics into account.

Theoretically, That is.

I want to read literary theory, but where on earth to begin? And about theatre. And I think I should start reading Norwegian again, my written Norwegian is god-awful - and I think I shall write something about why I dislike Vinje.


It is no secret that I think Norwegian school is, for the most part, useless. A school based on the notion that everyone is alike and has the same abilities, is bound to fail. While learning is partly about good technique discipline, it is also about talent and ability. Genetic disposition and environment, leave some children more favourably disposed for mathematics others for languages. Schools teaching at a middle level leave the above- and below-average students bored and helpless. If an above-average student asks for more challenging work, he is awarded with more work on the same level. And in the instance that someone needs help, the teacher does not have time enough to explain as thoroughly as needed.

It leaves everyone but those of average skill, accomplishment or motivation out. It continues on, with upper secondary being mandatory in all but law. There is a too high percentage of people taking higher education, and yet we put everyone through upper secondary? What could have been a stimulating environment for those interested in higher education turns into a kindergarten, where Norway's 18-year-olds are kept to make sure they know their advanced Maths when they end up sitting behind a counter.

On the other hand, I made a scary discovery today. We discussed society's development and how it turned into what we have today, and it struck me that I have learned so much these past 6 months that I should have been taught long ago. The workings of politics, how wars and crises spur development, for instance. As it turns out, my disinterest in politics has simply been due to lack of knowledge. I even read papers with interest, these days, because I was taught how to read them! Not directly, but through social anthropology and history.

How can anyone make sense of what goes on around them without having been introduced to these things? Much less take part in debates? But then the question of whether or not everyone should participate arises. Democracy, which in reality, does not function as well as we would like because everyone does not have the same competence? Or centralism, which leaves the competency in charge? Is the competency not already in charge? Because most of us do not possess, or, in the even that we possess it, use, the necessary competence those in charge are left to govern on more or less their own premises (simplifying things horribly, and leaving media and the judiciary, for instance, out of the equation) - taking the play that is politics into account.