Physics vs. home ec (spinoff of "Internalized Misogyny

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> The Social Scene

1 2 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Which should be taught in high school, physics or home ec?

Physics

46%

[ 15 ]

Home ec

50%

[ 16 ]

Neither, abolish high school

[ 1 ]

Total Votes : 32

chanatron1000 ↓

Yesterday at 10:03 am

https://www.imamother.com/foru.....95170

What do you think should be taught in high school, if it's a choice between the two, physics or home ec?

I'll put my answer here, please only look at it if you've either already responded or choose not to (so as not to introduce bias):

Hidden:

Last edited by chanatron1000 on Wed, Sep 18 2024, 10:50 am; edited 2 times in total

amother

Celeste

Yesterday at 10:15 am

Personally, I'd prefer home ec. I struggle with a lot of running a household, and it would have been helpful to have a structured curriculum. It might also avoid much of the complete ignorance many women have about things like leaving kids unattended in bathtubs and basic food safety.

Physics is in my mind a more specialized study, and while some might find it intellectually stimulating, I don't think it should be mandated for everyone.

No matter what field you go into, though, a frum woman is expected to be an Akeres Habayis, with at least some level of responsibility for the smooth running of her home.

GLUE

Yesterday at 10:18 am

In the 1990's many parents wanted their kids to go to collage and pushed the schools to offer more academic classes.(I am talking about American public school)
Many schools scraped their shop classes and home ed classes, and sold off the equipment used for those classes.
Well, Well, Well the pendant is now swinging the other way and many people want their kids to take trade classes in school.
The problem besides for not having teachers, is that equipment for those classes cost a fortune to buy. The classes have to be smaller and the insurance on the equipment can be unaffordable for a school districts.

When I hear bring back Home Ec, my first response to that person is who's paying for it? Can our cash strapped schools afford Home ec?
Can you find someone to donate the equipment like sowing machines? and ovens?and other equipment that a decent Home Ec needs?
Can a school find a qualified teacher? Right now most of my daughters high school teachers are girls out of Sem. Can they teach such a subject?

Aurora

Yesterday at 10:48 am

I just wish it didn't have to be an either/or. I think both boys and girls should have shop class, home ec, and physics.

But I also don't know about paying for it, and who could teach these classes.

Ruchel

Yesterday at 11:26 am

My children learn physics.
We teach home stuff.

Fox

Yesterday at 11:33 am

There's absolutely no reason that even financially-strapped schools to make such choices.

There are more and better options for teaching and learning than ever before. Between online instruction, programmed instruction, and community college extension programs, there is very little reason for not offering both.

I agree completely that both Physics and Home Ec should be taught to boys as well as girls. In fact, in the 1950s and 1960s, almost every college had 1-3 mandatory courses taught by the Home Economics department. These courses often were things like consumer education, nutrition, or basic child development. My father even got a minor in Home Ec as a complement to his business degree.

Now, you obviously aren't going to have as thorough an education in either subject without labs or equipment, but perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good.

There's plenty of crossover, too. If you're teaching cooking or household management, a huge part of what you're teaching is chemistry. Would it be nice to have a test kitchen in which students could have hands-on activities regarding the properties of acidic or alkaline solutions in storing food or doing laundry? Sure, but it's not strictly necessary.

Likewise, you can introduce students to the basics of garment construction without teaching them the mechanics of operating a sewing machine. Those who are motivated will seek out lessons, and the others will be able to evaluate whether that coat that's on sale is really a bargain.
___________________________________________

The saddest part of our focus on making things "academic" is that we actually discourage students who might otherwise be interested in a subject. A lot of students are turned off because they don't see any immediate or interesting application of what they're learning. But imagine if chemistry were introduced by discussing how to treat different kinds of stains on clothing. Some students will still zone out, but a few will think, "Cool! I wonder what else chemistry can do for me."

The biggest hurdle is that some subjects are considered more prestigious than others. And, yes, some require more actual brainpower. But judging a topic's importance based on how demanding it is? We need to reject that mentality.

DrMom

Yesterday at 11:36 am

Straw man question.

↑ chanatron1000 ↓

Yesterday at 11:42 am

DrMom wrote:

Straw man question.

It would be if it were a proxy for a different question.

lamplighter

Yesterday at 12:09 pm

Why can't both options be offered? Electives.....

amother

Burlywood

Yesterday at 12:24 pm

You forgot the option for both. It should be both.

amother

NeonPurple

Yesterday at 12:28 pm

Why no option for both?

LittleDucky

Yesterday at 1:07 pm

Honestly I loved physics. Never took home ec but I didn't need a class to teach me how to do basic cooking like egg salad. (Sewing wasn't taught in that class... it was just cooking/baking and other kitchen basics).

At the same time, I really wish there was a home repair course. How to fix a leaky sink, unclog a sink, use a power drill...
I hate having to call someone and pay to have them bolt that dresser to the wall (ikea) or fix something that takes 5 minutes. It doesn't have to be a construction class but basic tools, safety, and basic repairs...

My mom taught me to cook, sew on a button etc.

↑ chanatron1000

Yesterday at 1:27 pm

amother NeonPurple wrote:

Why no option for both?

Let's assume there isn't time for both. This question is oversimplified because physics isn't a direct replacement for home ec, but adding a subject does mean taking time away from another one.

amother

Snowdrop

Yesterday at 1:35 pm

Personally I’d leave home ec for home.

It’s stuff you learn from home, life.

And when you go away to dorm (both boys and girls) you get forced into learning how to survive.

School I’d prefer for as much studies and school learning as possible.

bigsis144 ↓

Yesterday at 1:45 pm

I feel like an actual useful Home Ec curriculum is much harder to implement than a Physics class.

I had classes in Nutrition (9th grade), Child Development (12th grade), general economics (included budgeting/“balancing a checkbook” type stuff as well as explaining things like interest rates and taxes), a brief course in First Aid/CPR/Self-Defense… and most of those could just be done in a classroom full of desks or an empty gym.

We also had a class called Home Economics which was basically a cutesy brainless cooking class. Anything we cooked had to be done within the 40 minute period; there was no way for 30 girls to have simultaneous access to the sinks, knives, stovetops etc. so either you watched one volunteer do it, or you made a dumb “no cook” recipe like crumbling already baked cake and layering it with pudding in a plastic cup to make a trifle. Yaaaaaaay. No way for everyone to make challah dough or even a cake from scratch, and some girls would have gotten squeamish and immature about raw chicken, and and and. It was just a “free snacks” class in the end.

I can’t imagine what kind of a set up you would need to teach students how to fix a leaky pipe or even hang a picture frame from a wall. A drywall that everyone can take turns hammering a nail into? Everyone takes turns sticking the little pen air gauge into a tire and figuring out if it’s the right PSI?

As much as it’s theoretically useful, I’d want to know it’s not just a waste of time.

notshanarishona

Yesterday at 1:54 pm

It depends, home ed could be a real waste of time if not properly arranged by level and interest or it could be extremely practical . For example we had sewing and while I am the first to say every one should know how to sew a button I don’t think there is any practical reason to learn how to sew a skirt, something 90% of the girls had no interest in.
Cooking would have been fun but it was geared towards girls who didn’t know their way around the kitchen so it was a waste of time for those of us who had been cooking for years and already knew how to make challah, bake, cook.

↑ bigsis144

Yesterday at 2:07 pm

notshanarishona wrote:

…
Cooking would have been fun but it was geared towards girls who didn’t know their way around the kitchen so it was a waste of time for those of us who had been cooking for years and already knew how to make challah, bake, cook.

100%

Miri1

Yesterday at 2:24 pm

I didn't vote because I think you should have both.
My high school did.
I prefered physics over home ec (I don't remember much of what we learned, except a very valuable class on making homemade pizza).

essie14

Yesterday at 10:04 pm

My son went to Israeli religious public school.
There are a certain number of "electives" in high school. His school offered woodworking, physics, engineering, multimedia, advanced computers, and other options. The boys can choose whatever they're interested in.

Hello99

Today at 5:12 am

My school taught both. I really enjoyed physics and cooking class and I personally hated sewing. If I'm being honest, participating more in the sewing class, would probably help me more in my adult life than my knowledge in different sciences.

I didn't vote. I think you should add an option that schools should teach both

Page 1 of 2

1 2 Next