Problems with education system

[UtahBill]

I think the only way to get a true good education is to be determined yourself to learn. No system can make you learn and nobody else can, you just have to be willing to learn yourself. In a way, I don't think anybody can give you a good education nor can any system. You just have to be determined to think for yourself and to have a love of learning. Once you have this love of learning and you think for yourself, you will start getting a real education. But speaking of education, I would like to leave you with a quote:

Education is a system of imposed ignorance -Noam Chomsky

Self determination is correct. Of my family of 6 children, I was the only one who pursued an education beyond high school, not counting job skill related schooling, which is training, not education.
Noam Chomsky is a collegiate, and not being fair, while not being wrong, either. Someone who spends all his time learning, teaching, etc. will likely be more informed than the rest of us. Ignorance is the opposite of knowledge, the more knowledge you have, the less ignorance you have, assuming it is correct knowledge. Imposed ignorance can be viewed the same as controlled knowledge. They teach us what they want us to know to become useful citizens, and that is not all bad. The danger lies in what they keep from us.
That is why the educationally advantaged elite in this country are at the top politically, financially, etc. Those with more knowledge can use/abuse their position to help us or hurt us, depending on their moral code. It can be as simple as the car salesman steering you to what he has in stock, instead of what you really want or need. Or worse, the financial adviser who steers you to what gets him the most income based on fees and commissions, rather than what gets you the best return on your investment dollars. And worse yet, the already rich and powerful are making the rules that suit themselves, instead of giving us a level playing field so more of us can move up the ladder a bit.
Knowledge is power, even individually. (Stupidity takes larger numbers of people to have much effect)
You can bet that the elite will never support really good public schools. They can pretend to, but they know that most of us are too cheap/selfish/lazy do our part. Even tho I have my 2 educated, both college grads, I am not above helping other people's kids with my tax dollars. We all benefit when the next generation is better prepared than the last. That is the way it should be.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Self determination is correct. Of my family of 6 children, I was the only one who pursued an education beyond high school, not counting job skill related schooling, which is training, not education.
Noam Chomsky is a collegiate, and not being fair, while not being wrong, either. Someone who spends all his time learning, teaching, etc. will likely be more informed than the rest of us. Ignorance is the opposite of knowledge, the more knowledge you have, the less ignorance you have, assuming it is correct knowledge. Imposed ignorance can be viewed the same as controlled knowledge. They teach us what they want us to know to become useful citizens, and that is not all bad. The danger lies in what they keep from us.
That is why the educationally advantaged elite in this country are at the top politically, financially, etc. Those with more knowledge can use/abuse their position to help us or hurt us, depending on their moral code. It can be as simple as the car salesman steering you to what he has in stock, instead of what you really want or need. Or worse, the financial adviser who steers you to what gets him the most income based on fees and commissions, rather than what gets you the best return on your investment dollars. And worse yet, the already rich and powerful are making the rules that suit themselves, instead of giving us a level playing field so more of us can move up the ladder a bit.
Knowledge is power, even individually. (Stupidity takes larger numbers of people to have much effect)
You can bet that the elite will never support really good public schools. They can pretend to, but they know that most of us are too cheap/selfish/lazy do our part. Even tho I have my 2 educated, both college grads, I am not above helping other people's kids with my tax dollars. We all benefit when the next generation is better prepared than the last. That is the way it should be.

I definately agree with you, except I would say stupidity can only need one person to have a large effect.

 

[George_Washington]

5. The Curriculum is also a problem. There needs to be a higher focus on critical thinking instead of silly rote memorization of facts. Education should be geared not toward creating some "mythical" well-rounded person, rather a useful, rational person. Instead of these bullshit subjects like Enliglish literature, which have practical utility of a hood ornament. Come on, this patently absurd that in our country one is forced to take MORE years of learning about Shitspear(TM) than one is of math or science. We should be teaching children the Scientific Method and its applications, not Romeo and Juliet. Every child should graduate with at least Analytic Geometry or at least algebra II--sadly, you can at many schools, including Northern Burlington Regional---my old Highschool. Literature is bunk, and it actually fosters an irrational, anti-scientific mindset. It needs to be kicked along with those worthless lit teachers who keep Literature components around simply to justify their degree. We should also be teaching them how better to manipulate language through grammar and rhetoric while teaching them proper rationality with several years of pure logic courses. To follow this up, all students should take mandatory ethics courses over several years in order to make people THINK, not react--thus being better citizens.

Whew, Tech! I can't even begin to say what a big dumb, ignorant sack of B.S. that all is. Shakespere is one of the greatest writers that ever lived-he was a genius in his field. If you don't see the value and benefits of literature to our society than I seriously doubt if you will make an effective history teacher. You're a history major-correct? I could just as easily say your degree is worthless, based on your logic, and that you should be majoring in math, engineering, or one of the sciences. Or maybe you're just jealous of the writers, film makers, and people in the arts that make millions more per year than you'll never see as a history teacher. I do think we should stress math more in this country but your attitude to education is just moronic. Not everybody can do math for a living-if that was the case, our society would crumble. Your dislike for creativity is also just as stupid, I guess you forgot that it was Einstein who said that creativity is more important than knowledge. Uh huh, thanks. Considering you're a history major, I've probably taken more math courses at the college level than you have and even I can see the benefit of the arts.

We should kick the nonessentials to make more time for essentials. Sports? Waste of time. Highschools are neither colleges nor are they training grounds for people to bounce basket balls. Schools spend too much time and energy promoting their nonsensical pep rallies than they do education. In my school, we were actually drug from MATH to go watch cheerleaders dance around like a bunch of morons. What imbecile thought that idea up? Math---peprally---math---cheering...Is this really a hard concept for administrations to comprehend?

Sports are a waste of time? Can you get anymore stupid or is this something you work on every day? Sports teachers people to work in groups, leadership, and the value of competition. I guess again you're just jealous of the athletes that turn professional and make millions of dollars. Sports is a worthwhile discipline and is something that is an aspect of our democratic, free enterprise system. Sports have been around since the ancient Romans. Professional sports create many jobs and bring in revenue for cities and communities. If we don't have sports in highschool than we'll never produce professional athletes. I'm sorry if you have no athletic ability and can't dribble a basketball to save your life but that doesn't mean you have to penalize those that can. Furthermore, everyone benefits from physical exercise. Or do you want us to be a society full of obese 600 lbs. people? Christ, we're already practically there as it is. And if you really believe physical fitness doesn't matter than fine, keep believing that when you die of a heart attack at 35.

But you're right about one thing; our school system does need improvements. The fact that they produced you is testimony to that.

 

[jallman]

I'll tell you exactly what is wrong with the school system...there is too much time spent on making sure each child feels good and not enough time making sure each child makes the grade. A few simple adjustments would make a world of difference.

1) School uniforms. School is not the time to make wild expressions of individuality. There is time for that from 3PM until 7AM the next morning and on weekends. School uniforms eliminate more than half the conflict of created social stratifications with kids. If everyone has the same shoes, then there really cant be much teasing about who's running shoes look more "fly".

2) Make sports participation and all other extra cirricular activities based on academic performance. You dont make the grade, you are off the team. Make it law that any teacher found helping an althlete cheat to stay on the team is automatically terminated with loss of any future teaching credentials for the rest of his life.

3) Raise the bar for teachers and pay them decent salaries. Teachers should be required to spend their summers continuing their education and should be paid for doing so.

4) Discipline. If teachers are left to look after children from 7AM to 3PM, then they should be granted the right and authority to discipline up to corporal punishment. If corporal punishment is deemed necessary, it should be handed over to the principle to administer. No kid ever suffered more than a little needed humiliation from getting popped on the hand with a ruler.

5) Consistently disruptive kids are out. Their parents can pay for them to attend a private school or some kind of vocational education. There is no need to force academic learning on a child who will not accept it. Further, there is no need to impose this disruption on well behaved students.

6) Attendance is mandatory just like for a job. I know at my school, we got three personal days per 1/2 year. As far as I am concerned, there are already 104 personal days per year and they are called saturday and sunday.

7) A school's budget should be determined by the state and should be based on the number of students in attendance. Text books and end of course exams should be standardized by a state education department and curriculums determined by a division of that department. Deviation from the curriculum should not be tolerated except in instances where time permits. Every student deserves the same education.

 

[UtahBill]

A few of us are losing sight of education vs. training, or liberal arts vs. career training. Necessary skills training vs. quality of life! Math, science, communication skills should be the core of our education system, so we can be employable. Some of us only need a little math, science, etc, some need a lot. The schools should put the core courses in the K thru 10 curriculum, and the higher math, science, literature, fine arts, etc. as electives the next 2 years. Get the basic stuff down first, then you get to decide for yourself, with career counselor advice, how to spend the next 2 years. I have been in technical fields all my life, and never once used any of "all that math" except a little algebra and trig. Never once used Geometry, or calculus outside of a classroom. Advanced math and science are for future engineers and scientists, or for those who just enjoy it.
And certainly a lot of history/sociology/government in grades 11-12, so you might be a better, smarter voter when you turn 18.
The science of human behavior should be part of that as well, as it, human behavior, is the most confounding thing of all. I doubt a bunch of 17-18 year old students will come to any conclusions in such a course, but the experience of agreeing and disagreeing over current issues is certainly good for the future voter as well. Being able to recognize political Bullshit is a necessary skill for all of us. And add to the grade 11-12 curriculum the art of compromise, and we just might educate ourselves out of this mess we are in.:roll:

 

[Diogenes]

I'll tell you exactly what is wrong with the school system...there is too much time spent on making sure each child feels good and not enough time making sure each child makes the grade. A few simple adjustments would make a world of difference.

Excellent analysis in that post! :rock

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Whew, Tech! I can't even begin to say what a big dumb, ignorant sack of B.S. that all is.

Amazing. That's what dumb, ignorant people who defend the inferior curriculae say.

Shakespere is one of the greatest writers that ever lived-he was a genius in his field. If you don't see the value and benefits of literature to our society than I seriously doubt if you will make an effective history teacher.

This is irrelevant. Shakespear is ont the "greatest" writer, and he's not even one of the greatest writers. That's a subjective value statement. Literature isn't based on fact. Literature is ont based on logical analysis. Literature is not empirical. It's nonsense. It teaches inferior ways of thinking. The entirey "literary" analysis method is diametrically opposed to rational science.

You don't need an entire class on Literature; this is a disgrace. We waste 3-4 years on this bullshat subject, yet half of our population is mathematically and scientifically ignorant. THis is unacceptable.
Literature classes are a waste of time. They do not

You're a history major-correct? I could just as easily say your degree is worthless, based on your logic, and that you should be majoring in math, engineering, or one of the sciences.

History isn't worth as much as engineering, math, and the sciences or logic. You're right. However, I am becomming a History teacher because it's pragmatic. History has some value in that you need to know what happened in your past; it's a lessons subject. Learn it, so you don't do it again. Memorizing every trivial detail is, quite frankly, worthless. History only has value in terms of civics and theme.

Or maybe you're just jealous of the writers, film makers, and people in the arts that make millions more per year than you'll never see as a history teacher.

Appeal to Motive Fallacy. No. That's not why. I could care less how much they make. Wasting time on frivolous subjects in highschool to the detriment of other, more important subjects, is a farse. It shouldn't be tolerated.

I do think we should stress math more in this country but your attitude to education is just moronic.

No, it's actually not moronic, but thanks for your worthless imput.

Not everybody can do math for a living-if that was the case, our society would crumble.

Strawman fallacy. I never said all jobs must be math related in society. I said to get rid of the worthless highschool overfocus on literature and stupid ****, like sports. That does not lead to the conclusion: bann it from society. You are free to go into arts in higher education: state education should focus on the core subjects that are pragmatic and utilitarian for human civilization's progress: Logic, Math, Science, English (English is not to be confused with Literature), and a utilitarian language

Your dislike for creativity is also just as stupid, I guess you forgot that it was Einstein who said that creativity is more important than knowledge.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy. I could care less what Einstein's personal opinion was. He wasn't talking about Art at all, rather creative thinking/critical thinking in science and logic. There's nothing wrong with creative thinking; spending four years studying Moby Dick and the symbolism of a white sperm whale, however, is pointless.

Uh huh, thanks. Considering you're a history major, I've probably taken more math courses at the college level than you have and even I can see the benefit of the arts.

ZZZZZZ don't really give a crap what you've done. This statement is irrelevant appeal to your own authority. The fact that you "might" have taken more math and that you think art is "fun" and "good" does not make it useful for highschool teaching.

Sports are a waste of time? Can you get anymore stupid or is this something you work on every day?

You really must have had oxygen deprivation as a child.

Sports teachers people to work in groups, leadership, and the value of competition.

They also:

A. Waste time for school and study
B. Create dangerous levels of competition
C. Siphon off time that could be better put into academics

All that "Teamwork" and "competition" nonsense you whine about can be easily accomplished without resorting to bouncing a basketball around a court untill 5 pm, when the kid belongs at home studying the scientific method.

I guess again you're just jealous of the athletes that turn professional and make millions of dollars.

Appeal to Motive Fallacy. Irrelevant. This hasn't to do with what constitutes a proper education.

Sports is a worthwhile discipline and is something that is an aspect of our democratic, free enterprise system.

Bullshit. Sports are unnecessary and harmful academically on a highschool level. You have schools where less than 40% of the students could pass the highschool assessments, yet most were learning very well how to prepare for cross country nonsense or "basketball." That's unacceptable. Obviously, both together do not work.

Sports have been around since the ancient Romans. Professional sports create many jobs and bring in revenue for cities and communities.

This is a combination of logical fallacies:

1. Appeal to Tradition. I don't give a **** what the romans did. It's irrelevant that it has always been "liked" or "traditional."

2. Strawman. I never said entertainment in society is worthless. If you want to entertain, go to a drama/acting college. Take up sports or drama in college where you pay for it yourself with your own money at a private institution. You are trying to turn my statements into something I didn't say: sports and entertainment should be driven from society completely. Way to go, dumb-ass.

If we don't have sports in highschool than we'll never produce professional athletes.

Bullshit. Colleges are the number 1 arena for sports. Most students waste their time in highschool sports; the vast majority of students will never become athletes, but they will always remain shitty scholars because of the time they wasted on sports in the vain hopes of achieving fame.

I'm sorry if you have no athletic ability and can't dribble a basketball to save your life but that doesn't mean you have to penalize those that can.

Ad Hominem Fallacy: You don't know jack-**** about me. I did archery in highschool.

Furthermore, everyone benefits from physical exercise. Or do you want us to be a society full of obese 600 lbs. people?

Wow..whoda thought? Another Fallacy: This time, it's Mr. False Dichotomy! You're artifically separating sports and exercize and artifically exercize from no exercize. I never said no exercize would be administered. Learn:

A. Get exercize at home
B. Get exercize in PE. YOu can get exercize from something other than sports. Gym should be completely aerobic exercize or weightlifting. Having competitive sports is unnecessary. Secondly, I am not referring to sports in gym.

Christ, we're already practically there as it is. And if you really believe physical fitness doesn't matter than fine, keep believing that when you die of a heart attack at 35.

Don't STrawman my post, dumbf.uck. I never said there would be no physical exercize.

But you're right about one thing; our school system does need improvements. The fact that they produced you is testimony to that.

Perhaps if you addressed the argument and cut out half of your logical inadequancies, you might have a point. Half your post is either a direct lie or a strawman, and the other half is a combination of other illogicalities. Stop lying.

 

[UtahBill]

Don't hold back so much, TU, tell him how you really feel!:rofl

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I think Joseph Goebbels said it best: whenver I hear the word "culture" I feel like reaching for my revolver.



Here's a brief synopsis:

As I mentioned before, quite correctly, Literature is a fairly worthless class. Our students are being produced in large quantities, but they are inept and ill-educated in science. Instead of focusing more time on Science in the curriculae, we instead pollute it with subjects that promote "artsy" creativity. Artsy creativity does not cure diseases, engineer marvels, produce valuable production-line products, or give people useful social qualities. People need to be taught how to balance checkbooks, how do algebra, how to recognize and apply the scientific method, and how to apply logic to the real world. If Literature classes get in the way of this, and if you cannot do both, then one has to go: if that occures, get rid of Literature. General Washington is a primary example of this total academic ineptitude.

Literature rests on the concept of literary analysis, which, as I mentioned, its the antipode of the scientific method. Literature is not based off of the application of logical parsimony or empircal observation, rather "writer's intent." Students, instead of taking and applying the simplest, most direct way of solving a problem, are taught to choose the most "creative," albeit most convoluted means of solving a problem. As an example, Literature teachers lie to students and tell them that a story is never just written for entertaimment--it always has some deep, hidden message. That's nonsense. Sometimes, a rose is just a rose.

What we get out of the Literary method are masses of students who, when faced with reality and a need to fix a problem, search out the most complex, creative, yet illogical conclusion. One can easly apply this concept to the current debate in the United States over Creationism and Religion. All "god" religions are logically invalid: they give an explanation that is untestable, unfalsifiable, and completely literary--yet people believe them anyway over the more straightforeward, concrete scientific approach. People now believe that mankind MUST have a purpouse and that nature is 'designed.' A scientist, however, would not believe such nonsense if it conflicted with the data. The religionist, however, seeks out the most obtuse, "creative" explanation possible. THe same goes for other charlatans who try to lie to the people, like snake-oil salesment, in order to promote a faerie-tale ideology. We must all search for this "transcendental" inner meaning. Nonsense.

In my current literature classes (wastes of money), we are studying defunct, useless literary movements that didn't even work when they were in motion. For example, Transcendentalism--the turd of the 19th century. It is quite clear that, from Louise May Alcott's "Transcendenal Wild Oats," the entire movement was horrifically unpragmatic and did not work in reality, yet today we have people who, via literature, get into this 'transcendental' mentality. It's nonsense, yet people are being exposed to it and taught it as if it were true. People are forced to chug down endless lines of useless, crappy poetry combined with boring, pointless essays that glorifiy self-conradiction (IE. Ralph Waldo Emerson: The AMerican Scholar). Instead, you should be learning something academic and useful, like the scientific method or basic physics (which many-a-student never even obtains). Any time spent on trying to understand what the "rose" symbolized in line 4 paragraph 5 of poes 2nd short story---is a waste of god-damned time. Who gives a f.uck?

We are forced to learn endless poems and dramas of shakespear that accomplish nothing but frittered-away time. The result: lots of students can mindlessly quote MacBeth, but few can tell you what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. Our curriculum is producing non-utilitarian, inferior students, and this problem is impacting our national science agenda. You have f.ucking third world shitholes that have superior education in science and math. Most nations are far better than the United States, in fact. S. Korea is one example--they are so far ahead of us in Biotechnology it would make the USA look like it got caught in the stone-age--all the while...American "scholars" know Richard III and "The Tempest." Please: Literature seves two purpouses:

1. A source of pithy, trite quotes
2. Self-justification for English teacher jobs.

English teachers, outside of teaching rhetoric, grammar, and structure, have no purpouse. In order to justify their jobs, they must "invent" things for English to cover--this invention is Literature and its "literary method." Literary method is very similiar to the nonsense comming out of the linguistic academic field--Post Modernism. Post MOderism uses a method very similar to the Literary Method: this method is called "deconstruction." This is a very clever, creative, yet ultimately pointless system insofar as almost anything can be deconstructed and given meaning where no meaning once ways. Academics are not paid to be right--they are paid to come up with creative ways of justifying their existence.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Some idiots will say that Literature builds vocabulary! Literature gives people access to great literature that gives them culture! Literature is important because, well, Shakespear is great! Some will even go so far to say that it helps people write well! To these objections, I say, horsedung! Why?

1. Nothing done in literature class that serves any academic purpouse is something that couldn't be duplicated in another class. You can learn to write in a standard, not Literature English class. YOu also write in any good science curriculum. Grammar and vocabulary can be learned alongside rhetoric in a standard English class. Rhetoric can be complimented by logic in a critical thinking or Logic Class.

2. As for building culture: Culture is not the duty of the State. It is the duty to produce education, productive, functional citizens who can work the wheels of the social machine. Sociey needs productive individuals--not individuals who can quote "The Raven" verbatum. Will culture disappear if it is not taught in highschool? Of course not. To pretend it would is a fantasy, and it's also a gross distortion of my postion--a strawman. You can pursue your artistic interests OUTSIDE of school and on your own time, or you can go to a professional organization to get that training: college is for specialization, not highschool. If you can fit it in as an elecitve WHILE maintaining high standards in the core subjects, then and only then should arts even be permited.

3. Shakespear is not great; his work is rather trite and banal. It doesn't teach you proper English, and it's a waste of time trying to sift through archaic English no one uses. It does not teach anything of value that couldn't be duplicated, sans the confusing, in another subject. Forcing literary analysis (AKA searching for **** that doesn't exist, but pretending it does) is a waste of valuable time that should, instead, be devoted to something more practical.


1. As for sports, it is foolish to think that Highschool students, on average, have a chance of making the "big leagues." It is a waste of time to ingrain it into a child's mind that he ought to fight hard in sports; he has little chance to make anything of himself by going and focusing on sports. He should focus on something more utilitarian in his life. Academics comes first: entertainment comes second. The percentage of students who go on to become successful athletes is absysmally miniscule, so it's a farce to treat it as more than a diversion while on the Highschool level: we aren't talking about college football here, that is a massive, interstate moneymaker. Even then, half the students don't go anywhere.

Too much in the way of scholarships is also handed down to people who are academically undeserving and inferior. At graduation, over 2/3rds of the scholarships were sports or drama oriented--not academic. That's unacceptable. It's also unacceptable that "jocks" are given breaks quite consistantly. They get more pats on the back and breaks than anyone else, and it needs to stop. Countless English professors have given "extra" time for jocks, because they are too fu.cking stupid to take the test in the allotted time; no one else, save the retards, get this time. They also get more chances because 'sports' are seen as college moneymakers. In highschool, the net COST of sports is more than the gain, when you take into context the crappy academic output of schools.

2. Now, some of you will whine that sports are a breeding ground for competition and teamwork? Boo-feking hoo. You can accomplish this same goal in many other, alternative ways without teaching people sports. You can easily make competition academic, which eliminates the need to try to kill your fellow student over not being able to hit the stupid volley ball or play pingpong. Please, our society is dangerously over the limit when it comes to sports competition. Did you people read the latest article in which an agry loser body slammed a 5 year old on a mini-golf course? It's absurd. This is, by far, not uncommon. You don't know what kind of **** students are subjected to every day when they are forced to try to "beat" people all the time. It doesn't matter how well you can bounce a ball; your mind is the importance in education. Our culture, however, teaches the opposite. The kid who cannot play shuffleboard eXtreme! is ridiculed by his classmates, yet they can all be complete morons, yet no one cares.

There is a higher level of potentially dangerous "competition" than teamwork that goes on in highschool sports. This is quite evidence in the quanity of drug use that goes on in highschool and college. People are forced to believe they ought to use drugs in order to "compete" against bigger, badder athletes. After all, if they lose at football, they are obviously inferior! We live in a Jock-Dominated culture that ridicules the intellectuals and glorifies Joe. Average and the jock. That's unacceptable. The geek and the "nerd" are, potentially, more valuable than the future burger king associate who as a highschool football star.

Gym should be a period that gives children exercize, but competition and sports have no place. It should be a perosnalized regimine of exercize: weights, track, aerobics etc. You can easily set up your own programme, sans the nonsense. It's not hard, because this is already frequently done on various gym days. Simply take more time away from sport and put more time into personalized exercize. It's a complete false dichotomy on behalf of George Wahington to assume that you must have A. Sports, or B. No exercize. I never stated that: that's merely one of her many distorted lies.

To help our future generations, the core curriculum in schools should not be arts based, rather based on things that teach them critical thinking and how to manipulate reality for pragmatic benefit. IT should give them the necessary tools for citizenship and civic duty.

We need: Logic, Ethics, Rhetoric, History (civics), 4 years of science, 4 years of maths, PE, and language classes. There also should be one pragmatic accounting class for business math. If you have to get rid of nonsense courses like literature, art, music, home economics (let mom teach you), thetre, film etc., so be it. If you can afford it all, yet not decrease the effectiveness of the core subjects and compromise study time, allow it.

If people are unable to cut the curriculum, then they should not progress. If you cannot pass basic science, math, and logic courses, you don't graduate. It's quite that simply. If you fail repeatedly, you will be sent off to state vocational schools where you belong, or you can go to community college and then make the transition to a university. Not everyone belongs in college, unlike academics. Artsy types who want theatre, drama, art etc can go to specialty schools, but they too must pass the required courses.

In short: there is something seriously wrong when your school requires more years of Literature than it does for either math or science.

 

[jallman]

Okay, I am about sick of this. As entertaining and long-winded as that was, it was a complete line of bullshit. The whole post took into account only one type of literary criticism, that being the New Critical theory. New critical theory is the least respected and insightful literary analysis because it operates under the supposition that nothing else matters except for the words on the page. It does not take into account the writer, the history, or the political climate surrounding a piece of literature. If you operate under the premise that all literary analysis is this free form, then of course you could come to the conclusion that the study of literature is worthless.

The true study of literature becomes much more akin to the study of sociology. Critical thinking skills come into play when you Deconstruct literature based on the surrounding events. History lessons are brought to life when you break down a novel into its Post Colonialist philosophies and there is a lot to be learned about the joint human psyche when you apply Psychoanalytic parameters to the imagery in an epic poem. To make the wild assumption that a new critical approach is the only form of analysis in literature is to do yourself and the study of humanity's prize utility a grave injustice.

 

[George_Washington]

This is irrelevant. Shakespear is ont the "greatest" writer, and he's not even one of the greatest writers. That's a subjective value statement. Literature isn't based on fact. Literature is ont based on logical analysis. Literature is not empirical. It's nonsense. It teaches inferior ways of thinking. The entirey "literary" analysis method is diametrically opposed to rational science.

You don't need an entire class on Literature; this is a disgrace. We waste 3-4 years on this bullshat subject, yet half of our population is mathematically and scientifically ignorant. THis is unacceptable.
Literature classes are a waste of time.

Oh "half" the population is ignorant of math and science? Have you actually taken a survery?

History isn't worth as much as engineering, math, and the sciences or logic. You're right. However, I am becomming a History teacher because it's pragmatic. History has some value in that you need to know what happened in your past; it's a lessons subject. Learn it, so you don't do it again. Memorizing every trivial detail is, quite frankly, worthless. History only has value in terms of civics and theme.

You really don't understand that you've just put down your own discipline. And history or another field really isn't less important than math or science. If that were true than we wouldn't have other disciplines in the first place.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy. I could care less what Einstein's personal opinion was. He wasn't talking about Art at all, rather creative thinking/critical thinking in science and logic. There's nothing wrong with creative thinking; spending four years studying Moby Dick and the symbolism of a white sperm whale, however, is pointless.

Yeah and of course we should all take your opinion, the word of a 21 year old nobody, over that of Einstein! Actually Einstein meant overall creativity.

You really must have had oxygen deprivation as a child.



They also:

A. Waste time for school and study
B. Create dangerous levels of competition
C. Siphon off time that could be better put into academics

All that "Teamwork" and "competition" nonsense you whine about can be easily accomplished without resorting to bouncing a basketball around a court untill 5 pm, when the kid belongs at home studying the scientific method.

False, there is no truth to this other than the fact that you personally don't like sports or that you personally don't have any athletic ability and are jealous of those that do. Don't say this is a fallacy cause it could very well be true.

Bullshit. Sports are unnecessary and harmful academically on a highschool level. You have schools where less than 40% of the students could pass the highschool assessments, yet most were learning very well how to prepare for cross country nonsense or "basketball." That's unacceptable. Obviously, both together do not work.

And where is the proof that our problems are because of sports?

Bullshit. Colleges are the number 1 arena for sports. Most students waste their time in highschool sports; the vast majority of students will never become athletes, but they will always remain shitty scholars because of the time they wasted on sports in the vain hopes of achieving fame.

If people don't play sports in high school they will never get to play in college because they won't be good enough! What part of this don't you understand?

Ad Hominem Fallacy: You don't know jack-**** about me. I did archery in highschool.

Fallacy this, fallacy that, blah, blah, blah.....

Don't STrawman my post, dumbf.uck. I never said there would be no physical exercize.

I'm not stawmaning your stupid post, idiot. You don't know jack squat about education and your views on sports and English literature are as moronic as your nasty little attitude.

 

[jallman]

I'm not stawmaning your stupid post, idiot. You don't know jack squat about education and your views on sports and English literature are as moronic as your nasty little attitude.

I do believe this is the first time we have agreed on anything. :2wave:

 

[George_Washington]

In response to Technocratic's post of complete garbage...

3. Shakespear is not great; his work is rather trite and banal. It doesn't teach you proper English, and it's a waste of time trying to sift through archaic English no one uses. It does not teach anything of value that couldn't be duplicated, sans the confusing, in another subject. Forcing literary analysis (AKA searching for **** that doesn't exist, but pretending it does) is a waste of valuable time that should, instead, be devoted to something more practical.

The majority of English Professors regard Shakespere's work as being very unique, articulate, and meaningful. Your opinion doesn't mean crap next to theirs, sorry.

1. As for sports, it is foolish to think that Highschool students, on average, have a chance of making the "big leagues." It is a waste of time to ingrain it into a child's mind that he ought to fight hard in sports; he has little chance to make anything of himself by going and focusing on sports. He should focus on something more utilitarian in his life. Academics comes first: entertainment comes second. The percentage of students who go on to become successful athletes is absysmally miniscule, so it's a farce to treat it as more than a diversion while on the Highschool level: we aren't talking about college football here, that is a massive, interstate moneymaker. Even then, half the students don't go anywhere.

It is not a farce to want to play professional sports; if everyone thought that way, then nobody would even try.

There is a higher level of potentially dangerous "competition" than teamwork that goes on in highschool sports. This is quite evidence in the quanity of drug use that goes on in highschool and college. People are forced to believe they ought to use drugs in order to "compete" against bigger, badder athletes. After all, if they lose at football, they are obviously inferior! We live in a Jock-Dominated culture that ridicules the intellectuals and glorifies Joe. Average and the jock. That's unacceptable. The geek and the "nerd" are, potentially, more valuable than the future burger king associate who as a highschool football star.

Well, if you consider yourself a nerd you might be right...:rofl

You really seem angry at athletes. This isn't a fallacy; I am allowed to recognize anger and point it out if I so wish.

We need: Logic, Ethics, Rhetoric, History (civics), 4 years of science, 4 years of maths, PE, and language classes. There also should be one pragmatic accounting class for business math. If you have to get rid of nonsense courses like literature, art, music, home economics (let mom teach you), thetre, film etc., so be it. If you can afford it all, yet not decrease the effectiveness of the core subjects and compromise study time, allow it.

We should take 4 years of math and science, yes, but we should also have courses in literature and the arts to make students well rounded.

If people are unable to cut the curriculum, then they should not progress. If you cannot pass basic science, math, and logic courses, you don't graduate. It's quite that simply. If you fail repeatedly, you will be sent off to state vocational schools where you belong, or you can go to community college and then make the transition to a university. Not everyone belongs in college, unlike academics. Artsy types who want theatre, drama, art etc can go to specialty schools, but they too must pass the required courses.

If we should really take all this math and science then why don't you take more math and science? A history major is hardly built on math or science.

 

[George_Washington]

I do believe this is the first time we have agreed on anything. :2wave:

Yes, I very much agree with your views on education. I believe we should value the arts, literature, and sociology.

 

[George_Washington]

This is irrelevant. Shakespear is ont the "greatest" writer, and he's not even one of the greatest writers. That's a subjective value statement. Literature isn't based on fact. Literature is ont based on logical analysis. Literature is not empirical. It's nonsense. It teaches inferior ways of thinking. The entirey "literary" analysis method is diametrically opposed to rational science.

You don't need an entire class on Literature; this is a disgrace. We waste 3-4 years on this bullshat subject, yet half of our population is mathematically and scientifically ignorant. THis is unacceptable.
Literature classes are a waste of time. They do not

Also regarding this ramble-your claim that Literature isn't as, "exact" a discipline as is somewhat inaccurate because even in math, "exactness" can be subjective, especially the higher up you go. If you do math with the real number system, you get one set of results. If you factor in imaginary numbers, you get another set. If you look at 2 dimensional objects, you get one set of answers and if you look at 3 dimensional objects and above, it's a whole different ball game. Math is logical and very precise, yes. But that doesn't mean it doesn't also contain subjective data and proofs that can be done a number of different ways and still yield the same result. If you replace our math system with a number different than 10, you get completely different results on things.

More over, engineering can also be highly subjective! Creativity can be a very useful tool in developing a new engine or any kind of new mechanical system.

So you're statement that Literature is just purely subjective and therefore is worthless is just nonesense.

So what do we do? We rely on scholars and professors in their respective fields to create a suitable curriculum for students. Most English professors think that Shakespeare was a brillant writer. You may not but that doesn't conclude that we shouldn't teach his work. We need some kind of a traditional, stable source to teach people with, we can't just pick out the latest best seller every month.

Your assertion that we shouldn't teach art or literature at all is ridiculous because art reflects humanity. We're not just all a bunch of emotionless, mindless drones that just go around all day computing math problems. Humans experience things in their life such as love, hurt, happiness, depression, fear, anxiety, and a host of other emotions. Literature is one of the ways in which humans express themselves and the human state we are all in. And yes, Literature is based on fact in the sense that it is built on emotions, feelings, and ideas that we all experience. You cannot look at literature the same way you do math, that is pathetically stupid.

Tech, I could see society if you were in charge. We'd all be a bunch of out of shape, mindless, scientist drones all having basically the same job, being miserable as could be.

If I were in charge, I would have students take 4 years of math, science, and also English language courses, which at least two would be a focus on English Literature. Yes, grammer is important but the artistic side of a student must be developed just as well as the roughly more analytical side. The understanding of human emotions and art can lead to people becoming brillant psychologists, speakers, and other professionals. And we should have at least one year of gym in order to convey to students how important physical health is. Physical health is important because when you exercise, positive endorphins are released into the brain which produces seratonim, which counteracts depression, which thereby allows students to be happier and to perform better academically.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Also regarding this ramble-your claim that Literature isn't as, "exact" a discipline as is somewhat inaccurate because even in math, "exactness" can be subjective, especially the higher up you go. If you do math with the real number system, you get one set of results. If you factor in imaginary numbers, you get another set. If you look at 2 dimensional objects, you get one set of answers and if you look at 3 dimensional objects and above, it's a whole different ball game. Math is logical and very precise, yes. But that doesn't mean it doesn't also contain subjective data and proofs that can be done a number of different ways and still yield the same result. If you replace our math system with a number different than 10, you get completely different results on things.

Yes. Math is sometimes theoretically, but it is largely based on pure logic and proofs. Mathematics is easily applicable to reality. Literature, on the other hand, is completely and always subjective. It has no practial value other than producing more English teaches. English professors breed asexually--they inculcate their victims with their methods and their dogma and then bud off into another english major. English classes are the catalyists for this process. Some people seem mentally resistant to the literary dogmatizing, but the population is rare.

Well, I am not saying all the imput is perfectly objective, however, it's more valuable to learn a core subject which has its entire basis in logic and proof. You can do things multiple ways, yes, but that doesn't make it subjective. That merely means there are many methods of getting the same answer. What do Lit classes do? What is valuable that cannot be duplicated elsewhere?

More over, engineering can also be highly subjective! Creativity can be a very useful tool in developing a new engine or any kind of new mechanical system.

Now, I never said creativity is bad. YOu can be creative and a critical thinker without being indoctrinated by art and literature professors who are pushing their literary and artistic ideas on you. Engineering is an applied science, which means it's highly objective--it's the use of science to fix problems. Engineers can be creative without art--which is exactly why Engineers are not forced to take (in college) vast quantities of art, music, and other crap. Few engineers would say they have "benefited" from these nonsensical studies. I am firmly against this concept of 'well-rounded' education. The well rounded educaiton is a ploy used by colleges to steal more money from students. They want you to take worthless classes, not because it will actually help you, but because they are busineses and they want to maximize profit. I have yet to use sociology in math or art in every day life--i do, however, use math every day.

So you're statement that Literature is just purely subjective and therefore is worthless is just nonesense.

I don't see how, since Literature is purely subjective nonsense. It also has no practical value. Name a few. Remember, it has to be socially valuable, pragmatic, and unduplicatable.

So what do we do? We rely on scholars and professors in their respective fields to create a suitable curriculum for students. Most English professors think that Shakespeare was a brillant writer. You may not but that doesn't conclude that we shouldn't teach his work. We need some kind of a traditional, stable source to teach people with, we can't just pick out the latest best seller every month.

I agree that scholars and professors in the field should decide what to teach. I agree 100%! I don't, however, agree that it should be a studied subject at all in the first place. I see no value in literature as its own class. It can have some value in a RELIGION class or in an ETHICS class or in a HISTORY class. THere is, however, little reason to keep Lit as wasting time on it is a detriment. Of course English professors will swoon over Shakespear. They need somethign to teach, and they need to pretend to be sublime in order to keep their jobs. You think they will tell their students this works sucks, but we're gonna use it anyway?

Your assertion that we shouldn't teach art or literature at all is ridiculous because art reflects humanity.

Science and math also reflect humanity. Again, you can do art and literature on your own time. It's not hard to learn to finger paint and babble about symbolism. English essays are all bulls.**** anyway--even the teachers admit it!

We're not just all a bunch of emotionless, mindless drones that just go around all day computing math problems. Humans experience things in their life such as love, hurt, happiness, depression, fear, anxiety, and a host of other emotions. Literature is one of the ways in which humans express themselves and the human state we are all in.

This doesn't explain why you teach it. Have your emotions on your own time. It's not necessary to teach it.

And yes, Literature is based on fact in the sense that it is built on emotions, feelings, and ideas that we all experience. You cannot look at literature the same way you do math, that is pathetically stupid.

That's why literature has no objective value. It's story-telling time. I thought we stopped that in Kindergarten? We live in the 2st century. Half the literature doesn't even apply anymore---including much of Transcendentalism. Half of it didn't apply then even. I gain nothing from being forced to read Anne Bradstreet's banal prose, poe's seriously notscary short stories, and Atlas Shrugged--the most boring book in the universe.

Tech, I could see society if you were in charge. We'd all be a bunch of out of shape, mindless, scientist drones all having basically the same job, being miserable as could be.

Why do you think you would all be drones and scientists doing the same job and miserable? I am not banning art or anything. It simply won't be taught likeit has some semblence of academic value--it doesn't. School is not for entertainment or culture, but education. School is ment to prepare the next generations for jobs and the furthering of mankind's technology, achievement, and knowledge,

I don't understand why you take what I say and manipulate it into something I didn't say. Nowhere did I say all literature is banned or destroyed or creativity stifled. You're free to do it on your own time. Go to borders; read a book. It's not hard.

If I were in charge, I would have students take 4 years of math, science, and also English language courses, which at least two would be a focus on English Literature. Yes, grammer is important but the artistic side of a student must be developed just as well as the roughly more analytical side.

Personally, I believe the grammar and rhetoric are more important, because they are critical in forming arguments. Now, my school's grammar programme was abysmal. We did lots of literature--half of which I have blocked out of memory and have no recolection--and 1 year of grammar. Grammar is less and less important in modern education, as Literature takes it over. People wonder why students get to college and have no idea how to write fluently in essays.

The understanding of human emotions and art can lead to people becoming brillant psychologists, speakers, and other professionals.

Speaking can be accomplished in rhetoric/public speaking courses. Understanding of emotions can be in Psychology. WHy use Literature for this? The notion that you learn psychology and public speaking in literature I don't buy. I learned more about Psychology and PUblic Speaking in my 2 college classes than in all of 4 years of highschool combined.

And we should have at least one year of gym in order to convey to students how important physical health is. Physical health is important because when you exercise, positive endorphins are released into the brain which produces seratonim, which counteracts depression, which thereby allows students to be happier and to perform better academically.

Did I say that PE wasn't important? I am not against physical fitness. I am against needless suffering that results from unfair competition that is taken far too seriously. You can get exercize and physical health without competition. Being forced to play ping-pong or badmitten in gym was stupid and wasteful.

 

[George_Washington]

Yes. Math is sometimes theoretically, but it is largely based on pure logic and proofs. Mathematics is easily applicable to reality. Literature, on the other hand, is completely and always subjective. It has no practial value other than producing more English teaches. English professors breed asexually--they inculcate their victims with their methods and their dogma and then bud off into another english major. English classes are the catalyists for this process. Some people seem mentally resistant to the literary dogmatizing, but the population is rare.

Literature really isn't completely subjective. It seems like you know nothing about literature, novel writing, and the like. There are concrete theories of having a solid storyline, character development, etc. You may say these theories are subjective but they are the the result of years of research on creative writing.

Now, I never said creativity is bad. YOu can be creative and a critical thinker without being indoctrinated by art and literature professors who are pushing their literary and artistic ideas on you. Engineering is an applied science, which means it's highly objective--it's the use of science to fix problems. Engineers can be creative without art--which is exactly why Engineers are not forced to take (in college) vast quantities of art, music, and other crap. Few engineers would say they have "benefited" from these nonsensical studies. I am firmly against this concept of 'well-rounded' education. The well rounded educaiton is a ploy used by colleges to steal more money from students. They want you to take worthless classes, not because it will actually help you, but because they are busineses and they want to maximize profit. I have yet to use sociology in math or art in every day life--i do, however, use math every day.

Yes, we use math every day but language and the ability to communicate with each other is just as valuable as math is to human society. Literature allows us to communicate better and develop a better understanding of language. In all of the top rated undergrad programs, everyone has to still take a core of classes that aren't related to their major. I really don't know why you're so against liberal arts education. Most employers regard a liberal arts education as highly valuable, at least more valuable than a technical degree. By technical I don't mean engineering but like one of those technical schools like, "Riverside Tech" or something.

Also, studies have shown that people who learn about music have higher math schools. The one famous German Engineer, Dieter Burmester, who created the Burmester audio company, played guitar in a band. A lot of what he learned in music helped him in engineering.


I

I agree that scholars and professors in the field should decide what to teach. I agree 100%! I don't, however, agree that it should be a studied subject at all in the first place. I see no value in literature as its own class. It can have some value in a RELIGION class or in an ETHICS class or in a HISTORY class. THere is, however, little reason to keep Lit as wasting time on it is a detriment. Of course English professors will swoon over Shakespear. They need somethign to teach, and they need to pretend to be sublime in order to keep their jobs. You think they will tell their students this works sucks, but we're gonna use it anyway?

Literature classes have a practical application in that they help people to communicate better, understand their language better (the artistic side of their language) and prepare people for possible careers and novelists. Perhaps you would disagree with me...but I say our novelists are just as important to our society as any engineer is. It is just as difficult to write a well made novel as it is to develop an engine. I firmly believe that.

Science and math also reflect humanity. Again, you can do art and literature on your own time. It's not hard to learn to finger paint and babble about symbolism. English essays are all bulls.**** anyway--even the teachers admit it!

Umm I don't know what teachers you're referring to but I've never had a teacher say that essay writing is completely bullshit.

Why do you think you would all be drones and scientists doing the same job and miserable? I am not banning art or anything. It simply won't be taught likeit has some semblence of academic value--it doesn't. School is not for entertainment or culture, but education. School is ment to prepare the next generations for jobs and the furthering of mankind's technology, achievement, and knowledge,

Well then if school is meant to prepare us for jobs than that's all the more reason to have literature in class! It can prepare students for great careers as authors, journalists, writing for the arts, writing for video games, etc. There is tremendous money in those fields, at least there can be for people who are good at it.

Personally, I believe the grammar and rhetoric are more important, because they are critical in forming arguments. Now, my school's grammar programme was abysmal. We did lots of literature--half of which I have blocked out of memory and have no recolection--and 1 year of grammar. Grammar is less and less important in modern education, as Literature takes it over. People wonder why students get to college and have no idea how to write fluently in essays.

I fully agree that we should preserve the English language and its grammer. I hate to see all the slang and stuff that we've put into it in the last century. However, I don't believe that it is actually more important than being able to write a fluid story. Both of those things are equally important but I think the true genius of a writer comes into play with he can be creative.

Did I say that PE wasn't important? I am not against physical fitness. I am against needless suffering that results from unfair competition that is taken far too seriously. You can get exercize and physical health without competition. Being forced to play ping-pong or badmitten in gym was stupid and wasteful.

I think competition is healthy for a society but I can see where it can be taken to the extreme.

 

[Diogenes]

Math is sometimes theoretically, but it is largely based on pure logic and proofs. Mathematics is easily applicable to reality.

Math is always based on axioms that must be taken on faith, and the applicability of the resulting logic to the real world depends on selecting the correct axioms. You are probably familiar with Euclidean geometry, in particular the axiom that says if straight lines cross, they cross only once. The resulting geometry works well in a plane, but does not work on a curved surface. If you keep all the other axioms, and change only that one to read "if straight lines cross, they cross exactly twice" you derive an entirely different geometry (Lobechevskian geometry, after the Russian who worked it out) that works well on an ellipsoidal surface like the earth and is the basis for geodetic surveying. (There's another variation, which I have long forgotten, that produces Riemannian geometry that works well on a hyperbolic surface and is sometimes useful in describing electromagnetic fields.) It's also possible to toy endlessly with different axioms ways that leads nowhere, so pick your thesis adviser with care.

Literature, on the other hand, is completely and always subjective. It has no practial value other than producing more English teaches.

Literature is the art of story telling, which is the way humans have always communicated their life experiences with each other. Agreed that all literature is subjective, but great literature is that which touches the souls of humans separated by thousands of years of time and thousands of miles of space. (The mythologist Joseph Campbell, who wrote the rules for story structure that most novelists now follow, argued that only two stories have ever been written: Genesis and The Odyssey; I'm not sure I buy that competely, but it's an interesting idea.) I've read fragments of poetry from 4000 years ago in Sumer and 2500 years ago in China, and (admitting that I'm at the mercy of the translator) I can understand and feel the agony of the poets over seeing their homes destroyed by warfare for which they see no reason. I've read The Odyssey (and numerous articles on the mythology behind the various adventures), Herodotus (truly, the father of history), Cervantes (great satire), Rabelais (excellent social commentary hidden under a mountain of ordure to avoid the Inquisition), Shakespeare (who surely knew more about the human condition than anyone else who has ever lived), and huge quantities of crap that make it to the top of the New York Times best seller list. IMO it would be a very sterile life for anyone who is not exposed to the breadth of human experience - but that's just my opinion. As for writing essays, one of the very few things I regret about my early education is that I didn't pay more attention to learning how to express myself properly. I really do wish I had taken them more seriously.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Math is always based on axioms that must be taken on faith, and the applicability of the resulting logic to the real world depends on selecting the correct axioms. You are probably familiar with Euclidean geometry, in particular the axiom that says if straight lines cross, they cross only once. The resulting geometry works well in a plane, but does not work on a curved surface. If you keep all the other axioms, and change only that one to read "if straight lines cross, they cross exactly twice" you derive an entirely different geometry (Lobechevskian geometry, after the Russian who worked it out) that works well on an ellipsoidal surface like the earth and is the basis for geodetic surveying. (There's another variation, which I have long forgotten, that produces Riemannian geometry that works well on a hyperbolic surface and is sometimes useful in describing electromagnetic fields.) It's also possible to toy endlessly with different axioms ways that leads nowhere, so pick your thesis adviser with care.

True, math is based on axioms, but the faith you're speaking of is a different type of faith. Not all "faiths" are the same. If you look in the dictionary, faith has 3 different denotations. Math takes as much faith as believing in Logic does. Many times, they are both fully applicable to reality; sometimes they are purely mental exercizes. They, however, are concrete, whereas Literature is storytime. Math has practical value in society, quite often. Literature rarely, if ever, has lead to progressive achievements in the real world. Math has valuable application.

Literature is the art of story telling, which is the way humans have always communicated their life experiences with each other. Agreed that all literature is subjective, but great literature is that which touches the souls of humans separated by thousands of years of time and thousands of miles of space. (The mythologist Joseph Campbell, who wrote the rules for story structure that most novelists now follow, argued that only two stories have ever been written: Genesis and The Odyssey; I'm not sure I buy that competely, but it's an interesting idea.) I've read fragments of poetry from 4000 years ago in Sumer and 2500 years ago in China, and (admitting that I'm at the mercy of the translator) I can understand and feel the agony of the poets over seeing their homes destroyed by warfare for which they see no reason. I've read The Odyssey (and numerous articles on the mythology behind the various adventures), Herodotus (truly, the father of history), Cervantes (great satire), Rabelais (excellent social commentary hidden under a mountain of ordure to avoid the Inquisition), Shakespeare (who surely knew more about the human condition than anyone else who has ever lived), and huge quantities of crap that make it to the top of the New York Times best seller list. IMO it would be a very sterile life for anyone who is not exposed to the breadth of human experience - but that's just my opinion. As for writing essays, one of the very few things I regret about my early education is that I didn't pay more attention to learning how to express myself properly. I really do wish I had taken them more seriously.

I agree that Literature can have some entertainment value, but I just don't see it (other than being ironically pragmatic due to the artifical need for English teachers) as being useful in a highschool setting. Can you not inculcate yourself with myths and stories from you local liberary? I can. It's free.

George Washington Wrote:

Literature really isn't completely subjective. It seems like you know nothing about literature, novel writing, and the like. There are concrete theories of having a solid storyline, character development, etc. You may say these theories are subjective but they are the the result of years of research on creative writing.

I have had several creative writing classes. I know the literary conventions. THey are all arbitrary. They are years of research--but they are still arbitrary projections of personal taste. Just like in art--people make up these convetions that make "good" art. THe entire concept is nonsensical. Such designs try to put an objective edge on something subjective. I can't stand dumbasses who sit around all day watching movies or visiting art galleries flinging opinions at something and getting paid for it. It's absurd how misplaced society's priorities are.

It's also unfair to artists; who the hell are those critics? They have degrees in making value-statements? Oh--that's bad because I say so! That's good because I like it! Who cares?

Yes, we use math every day but language and the ability to communicate with each other is just as valuable as math is to human society. Literature allows us to communicate better and develop a better understanding of language.

Of course language and communication are valuable. However, I don't believe Literature is what fufills that role. If that were true, then so many of our students wouldn't graduate nigh-illiterate, stupid. We should teach public speaking and rhetoric--two subjects that, in accordance with standard English training, I think will make a better communicator in the long run. Literature teaches more "theory" of value and entertainment than it does actual communication skills.

Also, I do not approve of the Literary Method. I have had a lot of experience in English classes, and I am not 'against' it because I am poor at it. I am not bad at it at all, because all it takes is the gift of gab. You can B.S. your way through literature courses and many liberal arts classes, but you cannot do the same though math and science, or even many of the softer sciences.


In all of the top rated undergrad programs, everyone has to still take a core of classes that aren't related to their major. I really don't know why you're so against liberal arts education. Most employers regard a liberal arts education as highly valuable, at least more valuable than a technical degree. By technical I don't mean engineering but like one of those technical schools like, "Riverside Tech" or something.[/quote]

I am against it because I prefer specialization in lieu of the "renaissance-man" philosophy. The latter teaches you to know a little bit of everything (untill most is forgotten), but a master of nothing. From what I know of Pyschology, most people remember very little of what they actually learn, and much of what is thrown at you in college serves no practical purpouse for people. I don't approve of teaching "well-rounded" liberal arts style education because it diverts time away from study of what you actually need--it fills your head with tons of useless garbage. People know just enough to know nothing at all in most of the "tangental" subjects. It's hard enough for people to remember and learn what they have to learn; there's no reason to complicate it with tangental subjects.

My second reason I am against it deals with the dubious nature of it. It's highly likely that the "well-rounded" education is part of a larger scheme to pump people with crap they don't need in an effort to make more money. You can get lots of sissy libby courses and throw them at people, because, on average, they are far easier than their science and math counterparts. Due to this, they can load you up on those subjects in order to make oodles of money. I don't appreciate being forced to take a hoard of totally irrelevant subjects to my major simply because they want to bang me for extra money.

There is no reason a computer-science major need take 2 advanced literature courses, yet they do at Monmouth University. It's absurd. It's totally useless. Logic and the scientific method, however, are universally applicable. Science can be applied to almost anything, even literature. That's why I value science and logic over liberal arts. You cannot successfully apply Literary method to reality, while the opposite is true for logic and science. Positivism is where it's at.

Also, studies have shown that people who learn about music have higher math schools. The one famous German Engineer, Dieter Burmester, who created the Burmester audio company, played guitar in a band. A lot of what he learned in music helped him in engineering.

I would love to see these studies. That might be true, but then music is the exception, because it does involve mathematical concepts.

 

[DivineComedy]

Considering all of those that recently filed for bankruptcy before the new law took effect:

“Care for us! True, indeed! They ne'er car'd for us yet. Suffer us to famish, and their storehouses cramm'd with grain; make edicts for usury, to support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act established against the rich, and provide more piercing statutes daily to chain up and restrain the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and there's all the love they bear us.” http://shakespeare.thefreelibrary.com/Tragedy-of-Coriolanus/1-1

If Shakespeare is not useful, before the mob is old enough to vote or acquires a higher education, then we are doomed to repeat history; many tragedies are first formed from a lack of wholesome acts.

 

[George_Washington]

True, math is based on axioms, but the faith you're speaking of is a different type of faith. Not all "faiths" are the same. If you look in the dictionary, faith has 3 different denotations. Math takes as much faith as believing in Logic does. Many times, they are both fully applicable to reality; sometimes they are purely mental exercizes. They, however, are concrete, whereas Literature is storytime. Math has practical value in society, quite often. Literature rarely, if ever, has lead to progressive achievements in the real world. Math has valuable application.

The practical value of math in society is really somewhat of a subjective concept. Yes, we all use very simple math like addition and subtraction on a daily basis. But for most careers, the vast majority of math we learn is never used. Most careers do not require a person to use calculus on a daily basis. Furthermore, even engineers don't always use calculus from day to day. So you claiming that math is so much more important because we use it on a daily basis really isn't true. I do see the value is being able to think logically and analytically but I don't think we need to know geometry to be able to do that in most careers.

I have had several creative writing classes. I know the literary conventions. THey are all arbitrary. They are years of research--but they are still arbitrary projections of personal taste. Just like in art--people make up these convetions that make "good" art. THe entire concept is nonsensical. Such designs try to put an objective edge on something subjective. I can't stand dumbasses who sit around all day watching movies or visiting art galleries flinging opinions at something and getting paid for it. It's absurd how misplaced society's priorities are.

People who judge film and art are people that have experience in this field. Making a film, for example, isn't just an entirely subjective thing. You still have to use solid storyline building, character development, etc. I really don't agree with your flip view of calling them names like dumbasses and calling the entire process absurd. Evaluating art, film, and literature is a study just like anything else is. When you say it's all just absurd, it's like saying people that create movies aren't talented and that just isn't so. If you don't believe me then go try to create an oscar winning film and see how "easy" it is. Futhermore...

There are opinions on everything and there are just as many "opinions" in the field of engineering! For example, two engineers could critique a set of loudspeakers. One could say it has good engineering concepts and the other might say that it was poorly designed. For example there are some engineers that firmly believe that electrostatic speaker design produces a wide soundstage and there are others that are totally against this concept. If you look at the scientific aspects of those designs, it really is just opinion in what produces the best results. It is true that all engineers need to know a good amount of math and physics, yes. But once you get past all that, in actually making breakthroughs in the field, it comes down to creativity and innovation. An engineer could sit down and do every Differential Equation correct from age 22 until he's 90 years old but that's not going to make him a leader in his field.

t's also unfair to artists; who the hell are those critics? They have degrees in making value-statements? Oh--that's bad because I say so! That's good because I like it! Who cares?

See, you just don't understand art. They don't just walked up to a painting and say, "Oh that's bad cause I say so!" They try to use valid concepts in forming their opinions. It's not unfair to the artists, they all appreciate criticism because it helps them to develop new ideas and to get better.

Of course language and communication are valuable. However, I don't believe Literature is what fufills that role. If that were true, then so many of our students wouldn't graduate nigh-illiterate, stupid. We should teach public speaking and rhetoric--two subjects that, in accordance with standard English training, I think will make a better communicator in the long run. Literature teaches more "theory" of value and entertainment than it does actual communication skills.

Also, I do not approve of the Literary Method. I have had a lot of experience in English classes, and I am not 'against' it because I am poor at it. I am not bad at it at all, because all it takes is the gift of gab. You can B.S. your way through literature courses and many liberal arts classes, but you cannot do the same though math and science, or even many of the softer sciences.

Saying that you can B.S. your way through liberal arts classes is a highly subjective opinion. I've known plenty of foreign students who thought calculus was easier than English Literature. So your opinion is just based on an individual's own talents and capabilities. Look at Einstein's career! In college he got through differential equations but he never did good in English classes.

I am against it because I prefer specialization in lieu of the "renaissance-man" philosophy. The latter teaches you to know a little bit of everything (untill most is forgotten), but a master of nothing. From what I know of Pyschology, most people remember very little of what they actually learn, and much of what is thrown at you in college serves no practical purpouse for people. I don't approve of teaching "well-rounded" liberal arts style education because it diverts time away from study of what you actually need--it fills your head with tons of useless garbage. People know just enough to know nothing at all in most of the "tangental" subjects. It's hard enough for people to remember and learn what they have to learn; there's no reason to complicate it with tangental subjects.

It is not true that a liberal arts degree makes you master of nothing; you still have at least 45 credit hours in your major. At least at my college you did. And like I said, a lot of employers like liberal arts degrees. You're not as limited in what you can do as if you were an engineering major. And employers greatly value them over tech degrees.

You can get lots of sissy libby courses and throw them at people, because, on average, they are far easier than their science and math counterparts.

Again, it's just what the person is capable of excelling at. And I still really don't see the point of you calling liberal arts classes, "sissy classes" because you yourself are in a liberal arts major. If you really feel this way, then why don't you just major in math or science? You're just putting down your own degree.

I would love to see these studies. That might be true, but then music is the exception, because it does involve mathematical concepts.

There have been numerous studies that suggest music education can help students excel at math. I'm sure they are easy to look up.

 

[zk655]

If the school districts were able to fire bad teachers, they would be more willing to pony up the money for good teachers. Just my opinion.

But this is one of the major problems. Its a vicious circle. You say if they could fire the bad teachers, the schools could hire good teachers. What we don't seem to understand is that people who would be good teachers DONT want to go into teaching.

Why would they?

1) They get paid poorly (nowehere near what people with a similar education receive in the private work force).

2) Through government red-tape and administrative BS, they have to teach with one hand tied behind there back.

3) They get little support from in-school and district administrators.

4) Parents aren't willing to work with teachers to enhance their childs education.

5) Despite that BS about only having to work 9 months out of the year, teacher's work their asses off. Many teachers can't afford to live in the community in which they teach so they have to start their day at 3 or 4 am to get to the school in time for faculty meetings between 6-7, and for individual time with students between 7-8. Then they have class from 8-12, yard duty from 12-1, class from 1-3, meetings with children, parents, and principal's from 3-5 grading papers and tests from 5-whenever they finish. Most of this with few or NO breaks (including bathroom breaks).

6) This doesn't even take into consideration that many teachers have to work a second or even third job just to make ends meet (that includes the $1,000's of dollars they spend out of their own pockets for necessary supplies every year).

So basically you have somebody that likely works 10-15 hours a day during the week, gets no weekends off because they have to work their second or third job, they get paid like crap and get treated worse by administation and parents.

mhhhhh yeah that sounds pretty tempting.

The truth of the matter is that these people are HEROES in every sense of the word and absolutely deserve to be treated like the MVP's that they are. U

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

The practical value of math in society is really somewhat of a subjective concept. Yes, we all use very simple math like addition and subtraction on a daily basis. But for most careers, the vast majority of math we learn is never used. Most careers do not require a person to use calculus on a daily basis. Furthermore, even engineers don't always use calculus from day to day. So you claiming that math is so much more important because we use it on a daily basis really isn't true. I do see the value is being able to think logically and analytically but I don't think we need to know geometry to be able to do that in most careers.

Yes. The high maths are somewhat not useful in every day life, but we need engineers and scientists who do use the higher maths. Science and math are married in many aspects. Without learning the math, you wouldn't be able to do much of what goes on in physics, chemistry etc. You might be able to get a way from it in some of Biology, though.

Everyone should be well-versed in business math, which many people never learn in highschool. That's a shame. They should learn a practical form of math as well as the higher maths that prepare students for the jobs of the future that require them.

Learning math can help you learn logic, because logic = math. Mathematics is an extremely logically organized subject. It won't help you form prose or poetry, no, but it can be useful. Everyone should have business math up to algebra II. You can actually graduate highschool without Algebra II. That's sad. Math is what makes the world go round. Again...what achievements has Literature produced, other than entertainment?

People who judge film and art are people that have experience in this field. Making a film, for example, isn't just an entirely subjective thing. You still have to use solid storyline building, character development, etc. I really don't agree with your flip view of calling them names like dumbasses and calling the entire process absurd. Evaluating art, film, and literature is a study just like anything else is. When you say it's all just absurd, it's like saying people that create movies aren't talented and that just isn't so. If you don't believe me then go try to create an oscar winning film and see how "easy" it is. Futhermore...

The reason I am snide with "critics" is half their comments are totally offbase. Critics decry things that are fantastic, and love things that are boring as hell. I have seen critics smash good films and swoon over nonsense. For example, have you ever been to the Gugenheim Museum in New York? I went there this summer, thinking that they had actual art there: they didn't. THey hadt his neo-art crap wrapped up in a pretty package. One piece that was "so highly" acclaimed was a god-damn slinky on a stool. I paid real money to watch someone put a slinky on a stool. That was retarded. Oh, but it gets worse! Roughly 60% of the pieces on the upper levels were nearly all the same with different names. They had one version of a white, metal box being shown at different angles. That's stupid. ANything can be art, including taking a dump in a toilet and putting up for viewing. Meanwhile, all the upitty elitists are flapping their gums to one another about how fantanstic the symmetry is. Oh horsechops! It's a f.ucking box with a slinky on it.

There are opinions on everything and there are just as many "opinions" in the field of engineering! For example, two engineers could critique a set of loudspeakers. One could say it has good engineering concepts and the other might say that it was poorly designed. For example there are some engineers that firmly believe that electrostatic speaker design produces a wide soundstage and there are others that are totally against this concept. If you look at the scientific aspects of those designs, it really is just opinion in what produces the best results. It is true that all engineers need to know a good amount of math and physics, yes. But once you get past all that, in actually making breakthroughs in the field, it comes down to creativity and innovation. An engineer could sit down and do every Differential Equation correct from age 22 until he's 90 years old but that's not going to make him a leader in his field.

At least those opinions are based on sound scientific and mathematical principles. That's hardly the equivalent of putting a slinky or photographing a roll of toiletpaper and calling it "art mystique!" Yes. You are right: creativity is important, but I sure as hell know they didn't learn it from literature I.

See, you just don't understand art. They don't just walked up to a painting and say, "Oh that's bad cause I say so!" They try to use valid concepts in forming their opinions. It's not unfair to the artists, they all appreciate criticism because it helps them to develop new ideas and to get better.

WHere from do they get these concepts? To they reflect reality at all, or is it like those people who came up with the name classifications for groups of animals? Just sitting in the park one day thinking up that a group of hippos = X name. Anyone who calls it something different is wrong.

I could create my own field of art with my own concepts--in fact--the Nazis did just that! The problem with art is that anything can be art if you twist the wording enough.

Saying that you can B.S. your way through liberal arts classes is a highly subjective opinion. I've known plenty of foreign students who thought calculus was easier than English Literature. So your opinion is just based on an individual's own talents and capabilities. Look at Einstein's career! In college he got through differential equations but he never did good in English classes.

Ya know...who would have thought that a foreigner would have a hard time in English literature. That's a great observation. That would be like you going to the African Congo and trying to read their literature. I am not talking about difficulty due to language barrier. Calculus would be easier than ENGLISH if you actually knew the rules of calculus.

I am not suprised he had a hard time at English, since it wasn't his native language.

It is not true that a liberal arts degree makes you master of nothing; you still have at least 45 credit hours in your major. At least at my college you did. And like I said, a lot of employers like liberal arts degrees. You're not as limited in what you can do as if you were an engineering major. And employers greatly value them over tech degrees.

Don't you think more time in your major is better than less time for understanding that major?

Again, it's just what the person is capable of excelling at. And I still really don't see the point of you calling liberal arts classes, "sissy classes" because you yourself are in a liberal arts major. If you really feel this way, then why don't you just major in math or science? You're just putting down your own degree.

Well, I am not really a "liberal arts" major. There is actually a Lib. Arts degree/major. History is ONE of the liberal arts. I have no problem admitting that Liberal Arts is not as hard-core as science. The drop-out rate is much, much higher in science, and the coursework is generally deemed more heavy. in science as well. Fewer people graduate or pass the higher Libbies than the higher maths and sciences. This is one reason hardly anyone at my college needs tutoring in history, yet the megalabs are jam-packed with math/science students needing help. I like history, but I respect science.

Just look at our Nazi argument. Since history is all interpretation and selective choosing of facts, you can make almost any "history." That's not the case in science, since science as a far more rigorous peer review system and method of attaining knowledge. There is some disagreement, but not like what is present in the liberal arts.

There have been numerous studies that suggest music education can help students excel at math. I'm sure they are easy to look up.

Do you have any?

 

[George_Washington]

Yes. The high maths are somewhat not useful in every day life, but we need engineers and scientists who do use the higher maths. Science and math are married in many aspects. Without learning the math, you wouldn't be able to do much of what goes on in physics, chemistry etc. You might be able to get a way from it in some of Biology, though.

Everyone should be well-versed in business math, which many people never learn in highschool. That's a shame. They should learn a practical form of math as well as the higher maths that prepare students for the jobs of the future that require them.

Learning math can help you learn logic, because logic = math. Mathematics is an extremely logically organized subject. It won't help you form prose or poetry, no, but it can be useful. Everyone should have business math up to algebra II. You can actually graduate highschool without Algebra II. That's sad. Math is what makes the world go round. Again...what achievements has Literature produced, other than entertainment?

I agree that we business and math are both important. I had several business classes as well as statistics in my major. But I still think we shouldn't leave out literature. The achievements of Literature go far beyond just entertainment. Like I've already said they help us better understand our human condition. Also, you said that high school should prepare us for careers. Well, I believe Literature can help prepare students for numerous careers in art, creative writing, journalism, broadcasting, psychology, cartoonists, etc. You objected all art classes be dropped in high school, correct? Well, just think of all the numerous careers a good artist can have! A person that can draw well can get a job with drawing for movies, video games, advertisements, marketing plans, etc. I mean if you take art out of the classroom, you probably won't be turning out as many people capable of filling these jobs.

The reason I am snide with "critics" is half their comments are totally offbase. Critics decry things that are fantastic, and love things that are boring as hell. I have seen critics smash good films and swoon over nonsense. For example, have you ever been to the Gugenheim Museum in New York? I went there this summer, thinking that they had actual art there: they didn't. THey hadt his neo-art crap wrapped up in a pretty package. One piece that was "so highly" acclaimed was a god-damn slinky on a stool. I paid real money to watch someone put a slinky on a stool. That was retarded. Oh, but it gets worse! Roughly 60% of the pieces on the upper levels were nearly all the same with different names. They had one version of a white, metal box being shown at different angles. That's stupid. ANything can be art, including taking a dump in a toilet and putting up for viewing. Meanwhile, all the upitty elitists are flapping their gums to one another about how fantanstic the symmetry is. Oh horsechops! It's a f.ucking box with a slinky on it.

lol. Well, I believe your frustration lies more with specific kinds of art than art in general. I've never been to that museum and to tell you the truth, I don't usually go to art museums. But just because there are objective kinds of art out there doesn't mean ALL art is just a bunch of subjective crap. And as far as films go, yeah there are some dumb critics out there, I agree with you there.

At least those opinions are based on sound scientific and mathematical principles. That's hardly the equivalent of putting a slinky or photographing a roll of toiletpaper and calling it "art mystique!" Yes. You are right: creativity is important, but I sure as hell know they didn't learn it from literature I.

Well, I would say that photography is a lot more than just pointing a camera at things. There is a certain amount of artistry that goes with it in finding the right angles of things and putting together shots that are creative. Think how great it would be to photograph super models all day. I know I'd like that job . I hate it how some people put down the modeling industries and related photographers. I'd personally love to look at gorgeous women all day long.

WHere from do they get these concepts? To they reflect reality at all, or is it like those people who came up with the name classifications for groups of animals? Just sitting in the park one day thinking up that a group of hippos = X name. Anyone who calls it something different is wrong.

I could create my own field of art with my own concepts--in fact--the Nazis did just that! The problem with art is that anything can be art if you twist the wording enough.

As far as pure painting and drawing goes, yes. But novel writing and screen play writing is a different story. It's very hard to have a novel or screen play be accepted by a major publishing firm. You really have to be good, which proves that studying literature can definitely help make a person a good writer.

Ya know...who would have thought that a foreigner would have a hard time in English literature. That's a great observation. That would be like you going to the African Congo and trying to read their literature. I am not talking about difficulty due to language barrier. Calculus would be easier than ENGLISH if you actually knew the rules of calculus.

I am not suprised he had a hard time at English, since it wasn't his native language.

OK but a lot of people just excel more at non quanitative classes. It was either Beethoven or Mozart or one of the classical music greats that was god-awful at math. I don't think Stephen King ever did that well at it either in school.

Well, I am not really a "liberal arts" major. There is actually a Lib. Arts degree/major. History is ONE of the liberal arts. I have no problem admitting that Liberal Arts is not as hard-core as science. The drop-out rate is much, much higher in science, and the coursework is generally deemed more heavy. in science as well. Fewer people graduate or pass the higher Libbies than the higher maths and sciences. This is one reason hardly anyone at my college needs tutoring in history, yet the megalabs are jam-packed with math/science students needing help. I like history, but I respect science.

I respect science as well but that doesn't mean I go so far to put down the liberal arts like you do. I'm not sure if the overall drop out rate of students is actually higher in math than in the libs across all Universities. That seems like a highly subjective statement. There are honestly people that would do better in a math major than an English major. I bet if you'd ask your school's guidance counselor, he would agree.

You asked me if I wanted to have more time in my major...well, I had 80 credit hours in my Public Relations degree which was a good amount of classes for any degree. I also had 15 hours of math, 5 hours of economics, 5 hours of accounting, 5 hours of logic, and a lot of other courses. Would I have liked to have more hours in my major? Well, not really cause I feel the added math courses I had made me well rounded and will prepare me for grad school.

The truth is, those schools that give you ONLY classes in your major aren't nearly as well regarded as other schools. Even the Ivy League Schools, even MIT, requires students to have classes not related to their majors to make them well rounded.

Do you have any?

There are so many sources in the net. Here's one thing you might have fun looking at:

http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/academic/hawaii.htm