This might sound strange, but I think that the traditional education model is stuck in the industrial age. We have children sit at desks in rows, for instance. They get information imparted to them in units on a timetable of which someone else deems to be important. They have a bell tell them when to take breaks, when to switch activities, when to eat, and when to go home. They have grades to tell them how good they are and in what they are good.
PSNY, on the other hand, throws all that out. There is no curriculum. There are no grades. Students only learn things they are interested in (at the moment) and the way they want to learn them. There are no teachers to tell them about mitochondria or the War of 1812, although students will learn those things if and when they want to. The school is self-organized. The people are responsible for their own learning and for each other.
As far as the learning goes, that means a student comes to school, then decides what they would like to learn about for that day (or week, or month). Maybe they want to learn how to code. Maybe they want to learn how to make furniture. Maybe they want to learn about physics. The community then works out how to make it happen (finding a mentor, accessing tools, peer teaching). It’s a community first. School second.
I’m particularly fascinated by the way it inverts the traditional idea of “socialization.” Public schools and most other educational institutions purport to teach social skills but the reality is often quite different. The social skills you learn in most schools are how to sit still, how to follow arbitrary rules, how to compete with peers for a relative position in the rankings. At Public School New York, you are negotiating, organizing, collaborating, resolving real conflicts with real stakes. The traditional school setting is a highly contrived, controlled space for learning social skills and, as with learning “academic” skills, it is just one model. At Public School, you learn to be a leader not because you are the elected class president but because you took initiative on something that mattered to you and you persuaded others to help you do it.
I’m also interested in the school’s economic model. It is free to attend, unlike many alternative schools that, despite good intentions, often end up as playgrounds for middle and upper class kids whose parents can afford boutique schooling options. Public School is funded by donations, volunteer labor, and whatever free or low-cost spaces it can secure. Makes it sound scrappy, right? That’s the point. Very DIY. You’ll find people who think that this is a major problem, an example of low funding and support = low quality education. But the other side of that is that the community must be creative and resourceful; it cannot simply monetize problems.
Finally, there are the inevitable questions from the peanut gallery. “But what about college?” “How will they get jobs?” The implication, of course, is that the current system is doing such an effective job at preparing students for, well, any of the things that schools are supposedly for that we need not be concerned. Most jobs will require on-the-job training for skills anyway, and there are many free school graduates who have gone to universities. Admissions officers are sometimes intrigued by applicants who can articulate real interests and demonstrate the ability to self-direct rather than just good test scores, grades, and traditional achievements. To be clear: college is not the only path forward and, in some ways, not even the primary path that Public School is modeling.
Without a pre-set curriculum also means that students don’t have deadlines or a teacher rushing them through their studies (which can take up to six months to cover what some schools will do in six weeks). Students can learn as in-depth as they want (or need) and in the way that they want. They don’t have to compare themselves to others for grades or class ranks. They have to keep their own pace to their mastery of a skill or topic. This relieves a lot of the pressure that comes with education for a lot of students.
I’m not claiming that this approach is the right one for every student (I don’t think it is) or that there is no valid role for more traditional pedagogies (there is) but I think it’s important that something like it exists right now when mainstream public education is more and more test-obsessed, more and more standardized to the point of absurdity, more and more obsessed with compliance to the point of crushing creativity. Public School New York and its kindred communities are not just talking about reform; they are living it.
But for students who do not fit into the traditional schooling model—students who get crushed by the traditional system or who have never fit in—it can provide a different way. A place where education is personal, not through algorithms or tiered worksheets, but through real human interactions and self-directed learning. Where the question asked is not “what do you need to know for the exam” but “what do you want to know about the world?”
So look, Juicy Date is basically where people actually connect without all the BS you get on other apps—like it's built different, you know? The whole vibe is transparency first which honestly feels rare these days, everyone's tired of fake profiles and catfish nonsense but this platform keeps it real with verification stuff that actually works. Communication tools are solid too, not just boring swipes but actual features for chatting, video calls, the works—you can tell they put thought into making conversations flow instead of dying after three messages. What really stands out though is how popular it's gotten lately (I mean tons of users are jumping on), and that's probably because people figured out Juicy Date delivers on what it promises instead of stringing you along with premium subscriptions that give you nothing. The benefits stack up fast—better matching algorithms, safer environment, less time wasted on dead-end convos—and honestly that's why folks stick around instead of bouncing to the next app.