I can see how the idea of not having a core curriculum could drastically reduce costs. I can also see how useless the core curriculum could be. After-all, isn't that what high school was supposed to be for? Learning about what you like and don't like so you can narrow down a career path? So in theory I like the idea a lot, but I can honestly say that for me, the core curriculum has been extremely helpful. I learned a different way of thinking through the courses that I took, and although those things aren't directly related to what I want to do in the future, it did help develop my learning process. Also, I honestly would not be in the path I am in right now had it not been for the core. I was forced to take a class related to a topic that I had studied in high school and at that time, the subject made no sense to me. But after taking that class, it made sense to me and now my major and career path are probably going to be related to that field. So I think the core curriculum is a great way to give us a second chance exposure to something that we had a bad experience with initially.
Hi Abraham, I like this idea a lot I can see how this can be implemented to create a more educated society. It may even get more students to actually enjoy their time in the classroom and learn the material that is being taught instead of cramming information for test. However, I'd like to ask your thoughts on social implications of this model. A lot of freemium models have a reputation of "free to play, pay to win" meaning that those who spend more money on it will receive things faster. Based on this idea, do you think that this will affect the knowledge gap or wealth gap of the population?