DH gave me the school-for-social-benefit argument once or twice. I finally said something like this to him:
Imagine you were in a new town and you wanted to make friends. You decided, since you like and are interested in medicine, to sign up for a class in medicine to meet other people who are also interested in medicine. But when you show up to the class, it was beyond basic. The teacher repeats things you have known for years over and over again and expects you to do the most inane exercises to show that you learned the material. But that's okay, because you're really just there to make friends. Right?
Now, imagine that you aren't even allowed to talk to the other participants, except for a few minutes before and after the class. When you try to talk during class time, you get in trouble. But that's okay, because you do have a few minutes to talk to the other participants. Right?
Now, imagine that the class goes for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, for twelve years (except, thankfully, for summers). Imagine the other participants are all working at their own levels, learning things and being challenged, but not once is something taught that you don't already know. Are you still okay with that?
Do you think you could make it through one 6-hour class of that sort without starting to act out? Do you think that you'd end up making friends? Or do you think you'd just annoy the crap out of everyone because you'd be making trouble asking question after question, fidgeting, drawing pictures on your work, and reading books under the table?
Do you really think that this would be the best way to make friends? Do you really think that this would be anything other than a monumental waste of your time? No? Then why do you think this is an acceptable way for DD to spend her time and make friends?
I think that got the point across pretty well.
