Republicans

[pErvinalia]

but I know that engineering degrees here are still very intense and very challenging, from reports from ex physics students of mine.

Snowflakes.

[mistermack]

Whatever happened to hobbies?
Unless you have ambitions to be a teacher, what's the point in spending time on stuff that doesn't apply to your chosen career?
If I was interested in French literature, or theatre, I would do it as a hobby. And I certainly wouldn't spend tax money on the stuff, if I was in power.
Stuff like that is best done by amateurs. Like the Beatles. They didn't go to pop music lectures.
Time spent on financial training (finances for personal management) would make more sense.

[Tero]

Jeb Bush Debuts One-Man Presidential Campaign Tragedy Play In Black Box Theater
http://www.theonion.com/article/jeb-bus ... trag-57068

[Brian Peacock]

DaveDodo007 wrote:

...Ban me you cunting mods so I never have to listen to your degererate filth again. Fucking cunts...

No, sweetie, we don't ban here, so you'll just have to put up with wallowing in degenerate filth if you choose to come here...

Some of my best friends are filth.

[Brian Peacock]

Whatever happened to hobbies?
Unless you have ambitions to be a teacher, what's the point in spending time on stuff that doesn't apply to your chosen career?
If I was interested in French literature, or theatre, I would do it as a hobby. And I certainly wouldn't spend tax money on the stuff, if I was in power.
Stuff like that is best done by amateurs. Like the Beatles. They didn't go to pop music lectures.
Time spent on financial training (finances for personal management) would make more sense.

Oh come on man - you have a creative soul and extramural interests, somewhere, deep down there, hiding, somewhere.

What if you interest and hobby was making money?

[Forty Two]

An engineer with a theater minor sounds great.

No it doesn't, it sounds stupid.

Opinions vary. My opinion is based on the idea that engineers tend to express the idea that they have difficulty with language, public speaking and expression. The Carl Sagans, Richard Dawkins, Neil DeGrasse Tysons, etc., are notable for their exceptional ability in that regard, which is rare in the engineering and hard science fields. By stepping outside the box, and learning literature, theater, public speaking, acting, or whatever - an person focused on engineering broadens their perspective and learns a different ability.

Now, why do you believe it sounds stupid? What's stupid about it?

A doctor with a minor field of study in French literature.

I go to a doctor for medical knowledge, not foreign language literature advice.

His education is not all about you. His life is not 100% medicine. To be an educated man means more than learning to earn a living, and certainly more than selling services that might be important to pErvin.

I mean - philosophy, mathematics, classical studies, etc. These are disciplines that afford an education.

What I find of little value are things like gender studies, communications, and that kind of thing - bullshit.

I happen to think that theater is bullshit, and French literature isn't that far ahead of it. You are just proving the point that Hermit and Jim were making. Basically, you don't like studies that you ideologically disagree with. Theatre is fine for you, because it can't challenge your ideological world view. But theatre is no less bullshit, and probably more bullshit, than some of the "studies" degrees.

You happen to think that, but as usual you provide zero reasoning or rationale for it.

I have no problem with coursework about any ideologies, including those I disagree with, even ESPECIALLY those I disagree with. Taking coursework in college, after basic economics courses and other 101 course - moving on to focus on classical economics, Marxist economics, Maoist economics. Taking courses in politics which delve into different political theories and different political ideologies - communism, Nazism, fascism - all those are very worthwhile.

I do disagree with courses which are ADVANCING an ideology, yes. I don't take economics to have someone sell or push or advance laissez-faire capitalism. I take the course to understand it, not to be indoctrinated into it.

Moreover, my objection to the "studies" degrees is that if you look at the actual courses they take, there is not much in the way of an "education" there.

It's not even the economic or productive usefulness or lack thereof that's the problem with those degrees. The problem with those degrees is that they don't teach people anything of value. I'd prefer my kids take classical liberal arts courses - learn Latin, learn Logic, learn mathematics up through at least Calculus - at least. Learn Chemistry, Physics, and Biology. History. English Literature (and/or French, Russian or other Literature). There is so much to learn - theories of intersectional transgendered feminism and instilling outrage in students over microaggressions, and whether someone uses the wrong pronoun doesn't rise to that level. The difficulty level - the challenge to the student - in these kinds of courses, too, is minimum. These are blow-off courses - these are the kind of courses taken as electives because they're cake-walks.

It's interesting - there is a HuffPo article about an 8th grade (13 year olds) test from 1912. Four years before college. I suspect most of today's college graduates would have a hard time with it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/1 ... 44163.html

[Forty Two]

Forty Two wrote:

...What I find of little value are things like gender studies, communications, and that kind of thing - bullshit. Most things with "studies" in the name...

You find little value in them because to have ideological differences with the people who run such courses.

Not true. Why would someone who runs a course have to have a particular ideology? Anyone should be able to teach a gender studies course - just as one can teach a course on Marxism without being a Marxist. I have no objection to courses about things that I disagree with - for example, Marxism, Communism, Nazism, fascism, etc. -- all these can be subject of advanced coursework. I would love to take them. Now, if the course was about ADVANCING communism or fascism, and if students were subject to allegations of harassment for opposing principles of communism or fascism, or if they're graded down for microaggressing against communists or fascists, then I'd have a problem with that.

However, the difference between the "studies" courses and a standard course on Communism, though, is that the latter is demanding and requires study. Like Harvard's course "China and Communism." MIT has a course on the Rise and Fall of National Socialism. That would be a great course. I don't expect either of those courses to advance a political ideology as part of the course, and I would still love to take the course if it was taught by a Maoist or a Nazi. the difference is that the knowledge gained in "China and Communism" and "The Rise and Fall of National Socialism" is orders of magnitude greater than that to be found in a course on "Contemporary Feminist Theory."

Well, I must admit a lot of their positions seem ludicrous, but the real point is this; do such courses represent a major part of universities today, or are they a minor side-show whose significance is exaggerated because the weird shit they often come up with is so bizarre it is newsworthy?

A large and growing part of universities today. As stated, by way of example, on the University of Cincinnati website - "Womens, Gender, and Sexuality Studies (WGSS) is one of the fastest growing academic fields in the country. The Department of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Cincinnati, as one of the oldest and most respected and established academic programs in WGSS, is on the cutting edge of this movement. Through its path-breaking MA in WGSS, its innovative and still unique MA/JD joint degree in WGSS and Law, its Graduate Certificate, and its popular Undergraduate Major and Minor, students gain a broad and in-depth understanding of women's and gender issues." One of the fastest growing academic fields in the country. Also, I find it noteworthy that the university says their gender studies program is "on the cutting edge of this movement." Is it, now? The college department is part of the "movement?" What other major fields of studies do departments ally themselves with a "movement" rather than study the field?

Now, again - whether it's insignificant is another issue. Even if insignificant, the courses are - in my opinion - for the reasons I stated - not of great worth as a college major. If I have any say in the matter when the time comes, they'll stay as far away from gender studies as they will from religious studies.

Your other points about the reduction in rigour of STEM courses may have some traction, but I know that engineering degrees here are still very intense and very challenging, from reports from ex physics students of mine.

Sure, because by their nature, physics is a tough course. Calculus is tough. Diffy-Q is tough. Thermo, Fluid Dynamics, etc. These are courses where you learn something, and it takes work to "get it."

That being said, it's disconcerting to see the reduction in ability of high school students to pass the SAT (a college aptitude test in the US). Average scores are dropping and are now in the low to mid 500s, when the lowest you can get is 400 and the highest 1600. Just for writing your name on the paper you get 400, and kids are unable to master that test. They're entering college with reduced aptitude in mathematics, language, writing, history, geography, sciences, literature, and other basics. So, it's no wonder that colleges have to drop their standards, too.

Recognizing that is why I have my kids learning at home in advance of their level at school. My 4 year old reads, and her level is "exceeds expectations" on all levels for kindergarteners, and she doesn't start kindergarten for almost a year from now. It's not because she's a genius. It's because learning is being instilled in her from the outset. We make sure she did activities that involved letters, numbers, words, colors, memorization, matching, and toddler level logic as soon as she was able to enjoy such activities. She gets plenty of toddler and pre-k play - she's all into princesses, and disney, and cartoons, and legos and toys and childhood fantasy play - but, she also knows more astronomy than some adults, and she says she's going to be the first astronaut to go to Saturn.

[pErvinalia]

I have no problem with coursework about any ideologies, including those I disagree with, even ESPECIALLY those I disagree with.

Except specifically the ones in this thread that you've disagreed with.

I do disagree with courses which are ADVANCING an ideology, yes.

Does not computer in light of your previous statement above.

I don't take economics to have someone sell or push or advance laissez-faire capitalism. I take the course to understand it, not to be indoctrinated into it.

Who says these people are being indoctrinated (any more than in any other political courses)? Have you done one of these course, or know anyone who has? Or have you just seen the talking points on Fox News and are reading them back to us?

Moreover, my objection to the "studies" degrees is that if you look at the actual courses they take, there is not much in the way of an "education" there.

Subjective opinion. I think there isn't much education in taking theatre or French literature.

It's not even the economic or productive usefulness or lack thereof that's the problem with those degrees. The problem with those degrees is that they don't teach people anything of value.

Subjective opinion. What you really mean there is that they don't teach people anything that you value.

I'd prefer my kids take classical liberal arts courses - learn Latin,

Why in the fuck would you recommend anyone take Latin?! It's absolutely useless, and that's coming from an ecologist who had to learn the Latin names of animals and plants.

learn mathematics up through at least Calculus - at least.

Unless you are doing advanced physics or some engineering disciplines, calculus is useless.

English Literature (and/or French, Russian or other Literature).

Useless.

There is so much to learn - theories of intersectional transgendered feminism and instilling outrage in students over microaggressions, and whether someone uses the wrong pronoun doesn't rise to that level.

Subjective opinion. Yawn.

The difficulty level - the challenge to the student - in these kinds of courses, too, is minimum.

How the fuck would you know? Fox News told you so?

It's interesting - there is a HuffPo article about an 8th grade (13 year olds) test from 1912. Four years before college. I suspect most of today's college graduates would have a hard time with it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/1 ... 44163.html

They may very well, but they have computers/phones to do most of it now, so there is no need to know much of that stuff beyond certain principles.

[pErvinalia]

A large and growing part of universities today. As stated, by way of example, on the University of Cincinnati website - "Womens, Gender, and Sexuality Studies (WGSS) is one of the fastest growing academic fields in the country.

I really don't think you get how stats works. Growing fast from a miniscule base isn't equivalent to being widespread (or not niche, as Jim was pointing out).

[pErvinalia]

That being said, it's disconcerting to see the reduction in ability of high school students to pass the SAT (a college aptitude test in the US). Average scores are dropping and are now in the low to mid 500s, when the lowest you can get is 400 and the highest 1600.

That's what happens when you cut education funding and don't pay teachers enough.

[mistermack]

Whatever happened to hobbies?
Unless you have ambitions to be a teacher, what's the point in spending time on stuff that doesn't apply to your chosen career?
If I was interested in French literature, or theatre, I would do it as a hobby. And I certainly wouldn't spend tax money on the stuff, if I was in power.
Stuff like that is best done by amateurs. Like the Beatles. They didn't go to pop music lectures.
Time spent on financial training (finances for personal management) would make more sense.

Oh come on man - you have a creative soul and extramural interests, somewhere, deep down there, hiding, somewhere.

What if you interest and hobby was making money?

I'd enrol for a forgery degree.

Anyway, a creative soul and extramural interest doesn't depend on formal studies.
If people choose to do that, good luck to them, so long as it's their own money and time that goes into it.

[Forty Two]

I have no problem with coursework about any ideologies, including those I disagree with, even ESPECIALLY those I disagree with.

Except specifically the ones in this thread that you've disagreed with.

...for the reasons I've stated. Their lack of rigor. Their lack of educational value. I also made the distinction between teaching a discipline and advancing a movement.

I do disagree with courses which are ADVANCING an ideology, yes.

Does not computer in light of your previous statement above.

Of course it computes. It's the difference between teaching about Nazism and advancing the cause of Nazism. That computes fine to most people.

I don't take economics to have someone sell or push or advance laissez-faire capitalism. I take the course to understand it, not to be indoctrinated into it.

Who says these people are being indoctrinated (any more than in any other political courses)? Have you done one of these course, or know anyone who has? Or have you just seen the talking points on Fox News and are reading them back to us?

There have been reports of indoctrination. However, I certainly have not alleged that all gender studies programs are indoctrination programs. I don't know if any are-- I said I would oppose ANY course of ANY kind that advances an ideology. Where I quoted the U of Cincinnati as bragging about being at the cutting edge of the "movement" - I would object to any course suggesting that they are on the cutting edge of a movement or being on the cutting edge of the movement. If a course on Nazism is being taught, I don't want them to be on the cutting edge of the Nazi movement. i want them to teach the subject.

I'm not reading any talking points. I've explained my position, which is far more than you've done. All you've done is your usual bullshit.

Moreover, my objection to the "studies" degrees is that if you look at the actual courses they take, there is not much in the way of an "education" there.

Subjective opinion. I think there isn't much education in taking theatre or French literature.

Of course it's a subjective opinion. All opinions are subjective. I stated my reasons for my opinion. You can state yours - but, of course, you haven't. You rarely do. I've stated outright that it's my view, my opinion, and I gave my reasons for it. I never said others can't have their own opinions which differ. Perhaps someone has a view that there is as much value in gender studies as there is in French literature. Have at it. If you think that, then justify your opinion with reason. That's what a discussion forum is about - exchanging differing opinions. You just use it as a shouting platform, to finger point and name call, and such.

If you really want to talk about the relative merits of academic disciplines, then talk about your view on it. You're free to disagree with me. But, just because others may have other views does not mean that my view has been refuted. You've done nothing of the kind. You've just absurdly declared that the reason I think gender studies and such courses are of less educational value is because I disagree with the ideology behind gender studies. That's simply your own unfounded allegation, based on nothing more than your invented view of what I think.

It's not even the economic or productive usefulness or lack thereof that's the problem with those degrees. The problem with those degrees is that they don't teach people anything of value.

Subjective opinion. What you really mean there is that they don't teach people anything that you value.

Are you from Mars or something? Of course it's a subjective opinion, and I gave you some explanation as to what I base my opinion on. And, of course it has to do with what "I" value. I don't speak for anyone else. What are you on about? Do I have to favorably evaluate gender studies because someone else somewhere thinks it teaches something they value? No, of course not. They -- and you -- if you actually chose to particpate in the discussion instead of being your usual painfully unpleasant self - can back up YOUR subjective opinion with whatever YOU think is important and you can explain whatever YOU value and how gender studies teaches it.

Go for it. Make your case.

I'd prefer my kids take classical liberal arts courses - learn Latin,

Why in the fuck would you recommend anyone take Latin?! It's absolutely useless, and that's coming from an ecologist who had to learn the Latin names of animals and plants.

I'm not surprised you would find Latin useless. That's typical of people who are uneducated, and generally dim. But, I'll try to use mostly Anglo-Saxon base words, the small ones, so you can be more likely to understand and learn something.

Question posed by pErvin: "Why the fuck would you recommend anyone take Latin?"

Answer: English is a hybrid language, a marriage of two languages— ancient English (growing out of Anglo-Saxon base) and Latin. The name English comes from the Angles who, along with the Saxons and other barbarians, invaded Britain after the fall of Rome in the 5th century. English is a Germanic language featuring concrete, common, everyday words, the words children learn to speak and read first in primary school. Beginning in about the third grade, though, the Latin half of the language becomes more prominent -- Latin based words are generally bigger, harder to pronounce, more complex and nuanced, more abstract meanings, and have different pronunciation and spelling patterns. The truly systematic way to continue the study of the English language after phonics (phonics focuses on the AngloSaxon half) is to teach Latin—the foundation of the Latin half of English. For example, we learn the English, Anglo-Saxon root, word for father, but then as we progresses through school we encounter other words: 3-5 syllable, difficult, abstract words that come from the Latin word for father, pater, patris. Words like paternalism, expatriate, patronize. Another example is the word death -- Latin word for death, mors, mortis, generates many English words - mortify, mortal, immortality, mortuary, mortgage, amortize. The idea is that Latin is the next step after phonics because it continues the study of the Latin half of English vocabulary in a systematic, orderly way.

Latin terms are used commonly in law and in science, and the root words for many of our common scientific terms are Latin - vernal equinox, igneous, solstice, sedimentary, fungus, bacterium. Someone with a basic education in Latin does not have to wonder why the plural of fungus is fungi or the plural of bacterium is bacteria. These are just the masculine and neuter endings of Latin nouns. He won’t have to struggle with biology terms. Trees that keep their leaves all winter are evergreen, an easy enough English word; but trees that lose their leaves are deciduous, a not so easy word—unless you know Latin.

The whole classification system of all living things, plants and animals, is based on Latin and Greek. Here are two examples: Acer saccahrumand Quercus alba. Saccharum, from which we get saccharin and saccharine, is sugar in Latin; alba, from which we derive albino, is white in Latin. And Quercus was the Roman name for oak. Even mathematical terms come from Latin. Integer means fresh, uninjured, whole in Latin, and thus, integers are whole numbers.

Latin is an efficient way to learn English grammar. Other languages, like Spanish, Portuguese, French, etc., are "latin" based languages, and thus Latin is the ancestor of much of modern western languages. Learning Latin helps learn other languages.

I mean why wouldn't Latin be something people learn? It's value to understanding the English language, other languages, legal terms, terms used in logic, scientific terms, is incalculable.

“In 1971, more than 4,000 fourth-, fifth- and sixth-grade pupils of all backgrounds and abilities received 15 to 20 minutes of daily Latin instruction. The performance of the fifth-grade Latin pupils on the vocabulary test of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills was one full year higher than the performance of control pupils who had not studied Latin. Both the Latin group and the control group had been matched for similar backgrounds and abilities.” https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2011/02/f ... o-success/

Interestingly, Mavrogenes found that children from poor backgrounds particularly benefit from studying Latin. For a child with limited cultural reference points, becoming acquainted with Roman life
and mythology opens up “new symbolic worlds”, enabling him or her “to grow as a personality, to live a richer life”. In addition, spoken Latin emphasises clear pronunciation, particularly of the endings of words, a useful corrective for many children born in inner cities. Finally, for children who have reading problems, Latin provides “experience in
careful silent reading of the words that follow a consistent phonetic pattern”.

“Latin is the maths of the Humanities,” says Llewelyn Morgan, “But Latin also has something that mathematics does not and that is the history and mythology of the ancient world. Latin is maths with goddesses, gladiators and flying horses, or flying children.”

No doubt some people will persist in questioning the usefulness of Latin. For these skeptics I have a two-word answer: Mark Zuckerberg. The 26-year-old founder of Facebook studied Classics at Phillips Exeter Academy and listed Latin as one of the languages he spoke on his Harvard application. So keen is he on the subject, he once quoted lines from the Aeneid during a Facebook product conference and now regards Latin as one of the keys to his success.

Now, that's just my "subjective opinion" of course. And, you're free to have your own "subjective opinion" that learning "fucking latin" is laughable. So, feel free to support your subjective opinion with some reasoned argument.

learn mathematics up through at least Calculus - at least.

Unless you are doing advanced physics or some engineering disciplines, calculus is useless.

Only to the myopic. It's used in economics too, not just advanced physics and engineering, like to predict maximum profits with calculation of future costs and revenue. But, even aside from its direct usage - disciplines have benefits aside from their direct usage in day-to-day life. The lament of students "why do I have to learn this, I'll never need it after school is over..." is a common one, but it's myopic and simply off base. While many of us are never going to use calculus directly, we can still use the lessons learned. One of the greatest lessons taught in any type of ‘higher’ mathematics is the ability to think about things numerically; to change words into numbers and to visualize how those numbers change over time. In other words, the skills learned in calculus, as in many other disciplines, are transferable over time to other areas of life.

English Literature (and/or French, Russian or other Literature).

Useless.

The point of an education is not, as should already be clear to you, not exclusively in their practical use.

This point was once made by the great Christopher Hitchens when extolled the virtue and near necessity of being familiar with the King James Bible, even if one is an atheist and antitheist. https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2011 ... ens-201105 that rationale applies to having some depth of knowledge in literature in general, particularly English literature, and to a lesser degree (for Anglophones) French and Russian lit.

Useless. LOL. What a gauche and vulgar thing to say, positively provincial.

The difficulty level - the challenge to the student - in these kinds of courses, too, is minimum.

How the fuck would you know? Fox News told you so?

No, I've read textbooks, and examined syllabuses, course descriptions and the like, among other things.

It's interesting - there is a HuffPo article about an 8th grade (13 year olds) test from 1912. Four years before college. I suspect most of today's college graduates would have a hard time with it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/1 ... 44163.html

They may very well, but they have computers/phones to do most of it now, so there is no need to know much of that stuff beyond certain principles.

We have lighters now, so there's no need to learn how to start a fire.

We live in houses, so there is no need to learn how to camp.

We have google, so there is no need to be literate.

We have AAA road service, so there is no need to know how to change a tire.

Well, if that's the best argument you have - we have computers/phones, so people don't need to know history, geography, math, science, grammar and such, well, that's your argument. I'll let you rest on that argument, and leave you in the good graces of the jury.

[Forty Two]

Oh, quick question, pErvin -

You accused me of opposing gender studies and the like because of ideology. What ideology is that? Please specify which ideology you believe underpins or is advanced by gender studies.

Also, you'll note that I also included studies like "communications" in the less valuable group. Is it ideology that I'm opposing there, too?

Do tell.

[Forty Two]

A large and growing part of universities today. As stated, by way of example, on the University of Cincinnati website - "Womens, Gender, and Sexuality Studies (WGSS) is one of the fastest growing academic fields in the country.

I really don't think you get how stats works. Growing fast from a miniscule base isn't equivalent to being widespread (or not niche, as Jim was pointing out).

Go fuck off. He was asking about "significance."

Number 1. Nothing in my argument had anything to do with how "significant" or "insignificant" specific courses or subjects or disciplines are. My discussion related to their value as part of a good education. JimC asked how insignificant they were.

Number 2. I never said they were or were not widespread. I'll leave it to you to make that argument and present that stats, if you're taking a position on that. I don't really care how widespread they are. I do see pretty much every university has a gender studies or women's studies program, and they also have a communications program and the like. So what?

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with their relative value as disciplines. Astrophysics is taken by only a small percentage of college students, but it's of tremendous educational value, for example.

What makes a discipline significant to you? What makes it widespread? Let's start there. Then we can discuss whether one or more disciplines meet that definition for you. To me, it's not relevant to the discussion, but if it's relevant to you, I'm happy to discuss it.

[Forty Two]

That being said, it's disconcerting to see the reduction in ability of high school students to pass the SAT (a college aptitude test in the US). Average scores are dropping and are now in the low to mid 500s, when the lowest you can get is 400 and the highest 1600.

That's what happens when you cut education funding and don't pay teachers enough.

Subjective opinion!

That's an interesting hypothesis. Do you have any evidence of that?

When was education funding cut, by how much, and what are the numbers on teacher pay? How much should they be paid such that they would better educate the students?

I wait anxiously for your wisdom and for you to support your argument/assertion.