> but I feel that you undervalue literature and history
Fair enough. I said folks don't "need" history and lit, but I probably should have said that they don't want them or care about them as they are currently taught.
As I mentioned, I think the history should be primarily local, and primarily focused on learning how to think and learn about history rather than just memorizing a bunch of facts.
I think literature should be salient to the audience rather than the (relatively) high-brow art that is the current canon. That would mean that "poetry" would probably look at more contemporary music lyrics (e.g., rap, country, rock, etc.). "Drama" would look at whatever TV series are popular rather than Shakespeare. This is the kind of stuff that people who are usually not interested in education would be very much engaged with.
Even something as off the wall as Judge Judy could be used to teach some basic law/civics.
> There must be better ways to teach algebra and higher math, science, history, literature, etc. But to say they are useless is bonkers to me.
They are useless as currently taught because most of the learners and their communities completely do not care about them -- the content is completely disconnected from many learners' day-to-day existence. Not only that, but for many learners who do show some interest in these topics, they will likely be ostracized.
As such, teaching these subjects better within the current paradigm (i.e., oriented towards college prep) is a bridge to nowhere.
None of these subjects will be highly engaged with by a learner until that learner's peers think that these subjects are important. At that point, learning can and will happen. Sadly, most people are not in a proper/efficient education setting at that point.
Feel free to follow up -- this topic needs to be discussed more by intelligent people. Your reply brought up several great points.