http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/officials-80-percent-of-recent-nyc-high-school-graduates-cannot-read/

Officials: 80 Percent Of Recent NYC High School Graduates Cannot Read
To Combat Problem, CUNY Starts Low-Cost Immersion Remedial Program
March 7, 2013 10:55 PM


NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — It’s an education bombshell.

Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

The number of kids behind the 8-ball is the highest in years, CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer reported Thursday.


When they graduated from city high schools, students in a special remedial program at the Borough of Manhattan Community College couldn’t make the grade.

They had to re-learn basic skills — reading, writing and math — first before they could begin college courses.

They are part of a disturbing statistic.

Officials told CBS 2′s Kramer that nearly 80 percent of those who graduate from city high schools arrived at City University’s community college system without having mastered the skills to do college-level work.

In sheer numbers it means that nearly 11,000 kids who got diplomas from city high schools needed remedial courses to re-learn the basics.

The thread title does not match the article (granted, it's copy from the article, so you're not the sloppy writer here).. 80% of high school students in NY is nearly 900,000 people. The article indicates that the number of students who arrive at CUNY from an NYC school that need remedial work is 11,000.

A more accurate headline might be "2.2% of CUNY's students need remedial work upon entering college". I bet that would pull a lot less page hits, so they went with the trololol one instead.

The article itself says 80%. Maybe the reporter graduated from NY publlic schools and can't figure out 80% of X = Y.

I know. When I say the article does not match the title, I mean the article itself, not your post.

CUNY only has around 550,000 students. if 11,000 of those students needed to go to remedial courses, that's around 2.2% of students. Perhaps 80% of those students are from NYC schools, but clearly the headline is intended for the reader to take away the idea that NYC is graduating nearly one million students per year despite them being illiterate. Because, that's where page page hits come from, and judging by the comments section of that site, there aren't exactly a lot of discerning readers who are picking up on this disparity.


I'd post some of the comments here, but suffice it to say many of them would revert in a ban from DakkaDakka.com.

 Ouze wrote:
I know. When I say the article does not match the title, I mean the article itself, not your post.

CUNY only has around 550,000 students. if 11,000 of those students needed to go to remedial courses, that's around 2.2% of students. Perhaps 80% of those students are from NYC schools, but clearly the headline is intended for the reader to take away the idea that NYC is graduating nearly one million students per year despite them being illiterate. Because, that's where page page hits come from, and judging by the comments section of that site, there aren't exactly a lot of discerning readers who are picking up on this disparity.


I'd post some of the comments here, but suffice it to say many of them would revert in a ban from DakkaDakka.com.

Except of course it directly says:

Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course it directly says:

Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

I guess I'll try this again.

Title: Officials: 80 Percent Of Recent NYC High School Graduates Cannot Read

Article: Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

Do you see that those are not the same things?

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Except of course it directly says:

Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

I guess I'll try this again.

Title: Officials: 80 Percent Of Recent NYC High School Graduates Cannot Read

Article: Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

Do you see that those are not the same things?

I kind of think that is cherry picking. But thats just me.

Understandable.

Also people that are illiterate make me several times before my face goes red and hand print is left on my face for a good hour/

Guy graduated with my sister who couldn't read his own name. Teachers passed him because he was a football star. Friendly guy, just dumb as a post.

Yeah, that article title is pretty bad. Also, needing remedial help is not the same as not being able to read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck, when I went back to school a year or two ago, I had to take a pre-college level math class (Math090 or some such) to catch back up based on my placement test. Does that put me in this 80% (not from NYC)?

Well, the article's a mess. Not being able to read is one thing but that's doesn't seem to actually be the case. Needing "remedial courses" could mean anything -- what is meant by "the basics"? The articles claims it's reading, writing, and math. But it also says reading, writing, and math for the purpose of college-level work. That's hardly basic. So, even taking the swollen statistic at it's face value, should we really be shocked that 80% of a population is not prepared to go to college? Regardless of how many actually do go, I'm not sure there is a real need for more than 20% of the population prepared to do advanced academic work. IME, many undergraduate programs basically are remedial courses.

 Manchu wrote:
Well, the article's a mess. Not being able to read is one thing but that's doesn't seem to actually be the case. Needing "remedial courses" could mean anything -- what is meant by "the basics"? The articles claims it's reading, writing, and math. But it also says reading, writing, and math for the purpose of college-level work. That's hardly basic. So, even taking the swollen statistic at it's face value, should we really be shocked that 80% of a population is not prepared to go to college? Regardless of how many actually do go, I'm not sure there is a real need for more than 20% of the population prepared to do advanced academic work. IME, many undergraduate programs basically are remedial courses.

Well it supports my argument that the author may be one of the 80%.

When Frazzled was but a few hundred years old he went off to community college in Cali as thats all poor Frazzled could afford (yee old boostrap CC for two years then finish at a university). I had to take an English and math placement test, and blew them out. I was told half of the entrants had to take substantial remedial English and Math. I was shocked. Later I had to deal with some elementary school teachers in HISD (Houston ISD). My shock was replaced by sadness about public education.

Education (and a Kentucky rifle) is the ultimate equalizer and makes every man six feet tall. Every US citizen has the absolute right to quality education, the scholastic equivalent of a colossus bestriding the known world. The fact we have failed in that regard is staggering.

It doesn't mean they can't read, it means they failed the placement tests and have to take remedial classes before they can take english/math 101.

Which is still pretty bad, because those placement tests are impossibly easy, but it doesn't mean "cannot read"

 Frazzled wrote:
Every US citizen has the absolute right to quality education, the scholastic equivalent of a colossus bestriding the known world. The fact we have failed in that regard is staggering.

Indeed, on that we can agree. While we haven't quite gotten to the part where every citizen can get medical care, although we're getting there, I think we're certainly at the point where pretty much any citizen can get a good education, if they so desire, generally regardless of their ability to pay. Hell, in most cases regardless of their ability.

My job offers tuition reimbursement, and when I submit my forms the HR lady always remarks that nearly no one every takes classes. It's kind of sad, really. But I guess you can't really incentivize it any more then has already been done.


edit: 3 quotefails in a row, wtf. I better go to bed.

 Ouze wrote:
I think we're certainly at the point where pretty much any citizen can get a good education, if they so desire, generally regardless of their ability to pay. Hell, in most cases regardless of their ability.

I think there are some locations still in this country where it is much more difficult to get a good K-12 education than it should be.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Every US citizen has the absolute right to quality education, the scholastic equivalent of a colossus bestriding the known world. The fact we have failed in that regard is staggering.

Indeed, on that we can agree. While we haven't quite gotten to the part where every citizen can get medical care, although we're getting there, I think we're certainly at the point where pretty much any citizen can get a good education, if they so desire, generally regardless of their ability to pay. Hell, in most cases regardless of their ability.

My job offers tuition reimbursement, and when I submit my forms the HR lady always remarks that nearly no one every takes classes. It's kind of sad, really. But I guess you can't really incentivize it any more then has already been done.


edit: 3 quotefails in a row, wtf. I better go to bed.

I disagree. I think we're a hella long way from every citizen can get a quality education.

I actually think that the demand for more education is the problem. Every time someone wants to improve education, that means they want MORE education. Universal Pre-K, College for everyone, etc.

I would much rather improve the education people ARE getting than give them MORE on top of the bad.

If we took the money we spend on the entire federal student loan program and put it into making, for instance, 3rd grade better, we would most likely end up with dramatically better results 10 years later than we do by sending unprepared kids to cheap college without dreams.

Maybe. Although statistically arguable, the claim can be made that the US spends the highest amount per pupil in the First World (overall).

EDIT: The problem is
1. Some districts get substantially more than others.
2. Many districts who spend a lot (Chicago is the pemultimate example) are overrun with bureaucracy and union pay/pension spending. The money that actually gets to the pupil is minimal, and union contracts insure that the best and brightest don't rise to the top. Translation - administration is bloated and crap, and union contracts keep crappy teachers in, without rewarding good teachers.

If I didn't have to deal with kids it'd be the perfect job for me!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Every US citizen has the absolute right to quality education, the scholastic equivalent of a colossus bestriding the known world. The fact we have failed in that regard is staggering.

Indeed, on that we can agree. While we haven't quite gotten to the part where every citizen can get medical care, although we're getting there, I think we're certainly at the point where pretty much any citizen can get a good education, if they so desire, generally regardless of their ability to pay. Hell, in most cases regardless of their ability.

My job offers tuition reimbursement, and when I submit my forms the HR lady always remarks that nearly no one every takes classes. It's kind of sad, really. But I guess you can't really incentivize it any more then has already been done.


edit: 3 quotefails in a row, wtf. I better go to bed.

I disagree. I think we're a hella long way from every citizen can get a quality education.

100% agreement with Frazz here. There are many, MANY areas where schools are simply woefully underfunded. It was brought up on another forum I read the vast divide between some school districts. Some schools, for instance, give each student an iPad with all their books on it. Some schools, on the other hand, don't even have enough books to send home with their students as they don't have enough to give each student one; what books they do have are usually woefully out of date as well.

I was lucky. I went to Fairfax Co. Virginia schools back when they were some of the best public schools in the nation. Now I live in Maryland, which has the best counties in the country for education (Montgomery and Howard). But I don't even begin to fool myself that schools in places like Kentucky, Mississippi, Louisiana or the ghettoes of New York City or Boston are anywhere on the same level as the schools I went to.

Don't just blame it on the schools/lack of funding. There is a motivation problem among teens these days that is simply abhorrent. Every day I see people who simply do not care about what happens to their life after high school, and have no plans whatsoever for their future.

 GalacticDefender wrote:
Don't just blame it on the schools/lack of funding. There is a motivation problem among teens these days that is simply abhorrent. Every day I see people who simply do not care about what happens to their life after high school, and have no plans whatsoever for their future.

I think you're confusing motivational problems for some students with lack of opportunity problems for others.

Motivation doesn't matter if your school is a gak-hole.

 pretre wrote:

 GalacticDefender wrote:
Don't just blame it on the schools/lack of funding. There is a motivation problem among teens these days that is simply abhorrent. Every day I see people who simply do not care about what happens to their life after high school, and have no plans whatsoever for their future.

I think you're confusing motivational problems for some students with lack of opportunity problems for others.

Motivation doesn't matter if your school is a gak-hole.

Don't you know? This is the FIRST time in history that teenagers haven't cared about high school. Every generation before this one was full of hard workers, while this one is a bunch of layabouts.

I'm glad Bloomberg is ignoring minor things like this and focusing on what really matters. Soda consumption.

Soda pop is all a plot to dilute our precious fluids!

It's conflating the two meanings of illiterate. Or rather, it's using one meaning as a tagline when the actual situation involves the other, so it's more a matter of just being obtuse and deceptive for the sake of being sensationalist.

Illiterate can mean either "cannot read", or it can mean "doesn't possess what is considered a high school education". I don't know where the second meaning came from, exactly, and it seems rather esoteric, but that's the "legal" definition of illiteracy, so far as I know.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 GalacticDefender wrote:
Don't just blame it on the schools/lack of funding. There is a motivation problem among teens these days that is simply abhorrent. Every day I see people who simply do not care about what happens to their life after high school, and have no plans whatsoever for their future.

I think you're confusing motivational problems for some students with lack of opportunity problems for others.

Motivation doesn't matter if your school is a gak-hole.

Don't you know? This is the FIRST time in history that teenagers haven't cared about high school. Every generation before this one was full of hard workers, while this one is a bunch of layabouts.

Everyone knows knows that hippies from the 60's were really into working hard at school so they can get good-paying jobs that's why they all became well-paid middles class workers in there later life.

The problem is that we left out the instruction in willpower that used to be taught through early life experience, frequently in the home. Having an iron willpower in the long run is worth dozens of IQ points. Give me the choice to invest in some freak show Navy SEAL type willpower guy with an 85 IQ and some cottontop who can't work for more than 30 minutes straight but has a 130 IQ and guess which one I'm putting all my money on.

School, especially pre-bacc schooling, should be primarily moralistic, IE instilling work ethic, willpower, and the ability to make sound, rational, just decisions. That, a basic understanding of math and science, an exposure to artistic techniques, a brief tour of history and literature, and the ability to express yourself in words is what the curriculum should be based on. Knowledge isn't even a fraction as powerful a predictor of future success as will power.

 Silverthorne wrote:
School, especially pre-bacc schooling, should be primarily moralistic, IE instilling work ethic, willpower, and the ability to make sound, rational, just decisions. That, a basic understanding of math and science, an exposure to artistic techniques, a brief tour of history and literature, and the ability to express yourself in words is what the curriculum should be based on. Knowledge isn't even a fraction as powerful a predictor of future success as will power.

Which is fine if you want to produce lots of low/medium-skill labor, and don't really care about knowledge beyond the basics required to function in everyday life. If you want to have things like science and engineering you need to go way beyond basic math and science by the end of high school, otherwise you're going to have undergraduate science and engineering programs that take ten years or more to produce qualified graduates.

I don't agree. What I described is the classical model of education. Many of the greatest thinkers of all time were so educated. It's a bootstrap issue. If you give someone willpower, he can give the rest to himself. If you have finished instilling willpower by 8th grade (my timeline, sorry if that was unclear) then you are able to get a ton more work out of people in the more productive time period of high school. I'm always a little taken aback when you look at how little people learn in elementary and middle school, given the virtually logarithmic progression of learning possible at young ages.

It shouldn't take till your 18 to culture willpower in kids. By 6th grade it should be there, and after that it is just maintenance and you can focus on whatever other educational goals you have.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Many of the greatest thinkers of all time were so educated.

Many of the "greatest thinkers of all time" also lived at a time when there was a lot less knowledge. Now we've reached the point where even a basic science/engineering education (IOW, an undergraduate degree) requires that you start day one of college with calculus/engineering physics/etc or you won't be able to finish even the basics in four years. And TBH current standards are already too low, cutting back even more on pre-college math and science in favor of "willpower" would be a disaster.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:
Many of the greatest thinkers of all time were so educated.

Many of the "greatest thinkers of all time" also lived at a time when there was a lot less knowledge. Now we've reached the point where even a basic science/engineering education (IOW, an undergraduate degree) requires that you start day one of college with calculus/engineering physics/etc or you won't be able to finish even the basics in four years. And TBH current standards are already too low, cutting back even more on pre-college math and science in favor of "willpower" would be a disaster.

That's not what he's saying. He's talking about refocusing earlier education into more openly and efficiently doing what is in many respects the only valuable part of much of schooling: the discipline to do something pointless, arduous, and useless because doing so benefits you for unintuitive reasons. If you teach people to shut up and focus when they're children they'll be finishing calculus before they're halfway through high school, in addition to the general good this will do society at large.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
If you teach people to shut up and focus when they're children they'll be finishing calculus before they're halfway through high school

This seems like a pretty big assumption to make. Is there any credible evidence to support the idea that average students (not just a few exceptional ones) can finish calculus halfway through high school? When you answer, keep in mind that calculus for science and engineering is a three-semester subject in college.

Is there any internationally agree scale that relates IQ or other ability measurements to the level of maths that can be acquired?

Most people don't need calculus, of course.

In fact most people don't need to go to university.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
If you teach people to shut up and focus when they're children they'll be finishing calculus before they're halfway through high school

This seems like a pretty big assumption to make. Is there any credible evidence to support the idea that average students (not just a few exceptional ones) can finish calculus halfway through high school? When you answer, keep in mind that calculus for science and engineering is a three-semester subject in college.

I am exaggerating a bit for effect, but calculus is pretty easy once you actually get to it. I think the biggest problem teachers face is a disinterested and undisciplined student body; if they were able to focus they could likely teach themselves calculus. The discipline to sit down and learn something because "shut up" is a crucial part of benefitting from education, and one I certainly wish had been instilled in me earlier than several years into college. At least I had the benefit of being disordinately sharp to mostly carry me through high school and the earlier college classes.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
If you teach people to shut up and focus when they're children they'll be finishing calculus before they're halfway through high school

This seems like a pretty big assumption to make. Is there any credible evidence to support the idea that average students (not just a few exceptional ones) can finish calculus halfway through high school? When you answer, keep in mind that calculus for science and engineering is a three-semester subject in college.

Ironically Sir Pseudo made my point better than I could.

I'm a pilot- extra calculus wouldn't help me a stitch in life. My fiancee is a vet. A lot of schooling, sure, but physics? Not useful in the field. My sister is an ER nurse. Why would she need physics and calculus? All of these are valuable jobs to the community and the economy as a whole. All of them, with the possible exception of mine (gulp) will probably be around for a while. None of them need any kind of physics or calculus. Hardly any jobs in America need physics or calculus. I studied geology in college, just because I liked it, and I did have to take physics (calc-based) and calc through differential equations. I have never in life used those skills since I left college. The idea that we have to shape our entire educational system to support a very small group of professionals is pretty untenable. Give everybody something they can use- willpower. If you focus on that while they are young you haven't even left any years of education on the table. Willpower training isn't like a separate class or something, it's just holding kids in schools to exacting standards at all times- even in terms of non academic stuff. Posture, manners, correct speech. People didn't force that on kids because they were really important in themselves, they forced it on them because having to abide by all these rules and strictures builds willpower that later you can use for more productive things. The biggest problem with American kids in school today isn't that they are dumb, it's that they lack willpower. There is a great book, just called Willpower, that contains all the latest research in the field. It's very illuminating.

For what's its worth, calculus came really easy to me.

Got my arse kicked in Algebra.

Silverthorne wrote:Give everybody something they can use- willpower. If you focus on that while they are young you haven't even left any years of education on the table. Willpower training isn't like a separate class or something, it's just holding kids in schools to exacting standards at all times- even in terms of non academic stuff. Posture, manners, correct speech. People didn't force that on kids because they were really important in themselves, they forced it on them because having to abide by all these rules and strictures builds willpower that later you can use for more productive things. The biggest problem with American kids in school today isn't that they are dumb, it's that they lack willpower. There is a great book, just called Willpower, that contains all the latest research in the field. It's very illuminating.

So long as one makes it clear why they need to follow all these arbitrary rules, instead of trusting them to figure it out for themselves. Kids aren't smart, but they are cunning enough to realize when something's pointless; they may do it anyways to avoid punishment or get some manner of reward, but they'll still resent and act against it when given the chance.

I mean, there's plenty of arbitrary behavioral rules in place, and plenty of blatantly useless topics taught in school, but for all that I saw this firsthand the underlying point of it all escaped me until I was in college. Most people don't seem to ever fully understand the whole process, and make light of just how useless much of schooling is, which shows that making people adhere to rigorous standards isn't a surefire way of instilling discipline in them.

whembly wrote:For what's its worth, calculus came really easy to me.

Got my arse kicked in Algebra.

Calculus was so much easier than some of the more advanced algebra that I learned* years before taking calculus. Most of the worst was just stupidly convoluted ways of doing things calculus accomplishes in a tenth of the time. I don't understand why calculus gets treated as some esoteric and super-advanced topic - it's simple and awesome. I might not need to use it day-to-day, but I can still derive an equation drunk - and often have because when you're drunk it seems that much more awesome.

*Had to study, and used all of once: on the test to demonstrate I knew how to do it. I don't even remember more of it than that.

Differentiation is pretty simple as long as you don't worry too much about limits and what it actually means in some physical systems, but I do think integration and some other forms of differentiation (I'm remembering partial derivatives in my thermodynamics course, I found that tough) are challenging, and more complex than any other algebra, especially if you want to know why you're doing it that way and what that means in a physical system. If you use it as a black box that you put variables into and get an answer out of, it's not too bad though.

On the subject of willpower, I'd be okay with altering how we teach at primary school to instil more willpower and work ethic in kids. I also think we should focus on reading, writing and maths as well as thinking skills with young kids, and only teach "science" and the humanities in a fairly basic way. Secondary school is when their brains are developed enough to get the most out of those subjects, and to think critically.

 Da Boss wrote:
If you use it as a black box that you put variables into and get an answer out of, it's not too bad though.

Dude, calculus works because magic. It's like an IRL cheat code.

On the subject of willpower, I'd be okay with altering how we teach at primary school to instil more willpower and work ethic in kids. I also think we should focus on reading, writing and maths as well as thinking skills with young kids, and only teach "science" and the humanities in a fairly basic way. Secondary school is when their brains are developed enough to get the most out of those subjects, and to think critically.

Yeah, "science" as taught at the lowest levels is laughably useless. Just a basic primer on the scientific method and the philosophy behind it should be pretty much all that kids could really understand or benefit from at that level. Go beyond that and you're just trying to burn time. That's not to say they don't remember much of it, it's just necessarily restricted to a "basic trivia" level by the constraints of time and the abilities of the students.

Student motivation will happen when both the teachers and parents push the students. Without parent or teacher support, the student has little incentive to excel at school.

One of the things I am hesitant about merit pay is that some teachers luck out and get a great school to work in and others draw crappy schools and no real involvement. I still remember in high school, some kids will never learn and will be screwups. Which is why I would advocate starting things like apprenticeships with vocational jobs starting at age 16. Everyone should be able to go to college but not everyone is cut out for college. I know because I have to deal with remedial college students who use Wikipedia for their papers and then come to me with help finding books and articles (but the perks of being a librarian is knowing you helped them get an A on their assignment).

 Silverthorne wrote:
I don't agree. What I described is the classical model of education. Many of the greatest thinkers of all time were so educated. It's a bootstrap issue. If you give someone willpower, he can give the rest to himself. If you have finished instilling willpower by 8th grade (my timeline, sorry if that was unclear) then you are able to get a ton more work out of people in the more productive time period of high school. I'm always a little taken aback when you look at how little people learn in elementary and middle school, given the virtually logarithmic progression of learning possible at young ages.

It shouldn't take till your 18 to culture willpower in kids. By 6th grade it should be there, and after that it is just maintenance and you can focus on whatever other educational goals you have.

You need to go and read up on schooling in Asia and the problems their approach causes. Hours of homework and very strict learning by rote. And in the end it gives you students that can give the periodic table from start to finish, but can't figure out or adapt to any new problem.

It's interesting you mentioned the Navy SEAL earlier. First up, you aren't getting into SEALs with an 85 IQ, and second up those guys (like all spec ops) are noted for their ability to adapt and think on their feet. A kid who's just taught discipline won't make the grade.


Point being, the absolute most important thing to instill in kids is to teach them how to learn and think for themselves, and the most important cultural value is for them to treasure learning and thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
That's not what he's saying. He's talking about refocusing earlier education into more openly and efficiently doing what is in many respects the only valuable part of much of schooling: the discipline to do something pointless, arduous, and useless because doing so benefits you for unintuitive reasons. If you teach people to shut up and focus when they're children they'll be finishing calculus before they're halfway through high school, in addition to the general good this will do society at large.

And they'll have absolutely no idea how to apply that knowledge to the real world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silverthorne wrote:
I'm a pilot- extra calculus wouldn't help me a stitch in life. My fiancee is a vet. A lot of schooling, sure, but physics? Not useful in the field. My sister is an ER nurse. Why would she need physics and calculus? All of these are valuable jobs to the community and the economy as a whole. All of them, with the possible exception of mine (gulp) will probably be around for a while. None of them need any kind of physics or calculus. Hardly any jobs in America need physics or calculus. I studied geology in college, just because I liked it, and I did have to take physics (calc-based) and calc through differential equations. I have never in life used those skills since I left college. The idea that we have to shape our entire educational system to support a very small group of professionals is pretty untenable.

The ability to understand abstract concepts and use the rules and systems of that abstract system to solve problems is an essential building block, whether or not the specific abstract skill ever ends up getting used in the real world.

 Manchu wrote:
IME, many undergraduate programs basically are remedial courses.

I would go so far as to say that many undergraduate programs involve no education at all, merely expensive pieces of paper.

 sebster wrote:

You need to go and read up on schooling in Asia and the problems their approach causes. Hours of homework and very strict learning by rote. And in the end it gives you students that can give the periodic table from start to finish, but can't figure out or adapt to any new problem.

Care to elaborate on this? Because the school systems in Asia are either third world systems, with all the attendant problems, or are Japan, which is worse about discipline than most American schools, and is all-around a pretty substandard system, which fudges the numbers by ensuring only the best students take their standard tests so as to appear better on paper.

Point being, the absolute most important thing to instill in kids is to teach them how to learn and think for themselves, and the most important cultural value is for them to treasure learning and thinking.

The problem being that without the discipline to act against impulse when it is beneficial to do so, learning something to any great degree is impossible without some overwhelming fascination with it. Action is a much bigger part of life than studying; experience is the only true teacher, and without the discipline to work and practice in a given field (which is tedious at best, for all that a particular interest in the matter makes it more tolerable), then a simple "respect for learning" isn't going to do anything.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
That's not what he's saying. He's talking about refocusing earlier education into more openly and efficiently doing what is in many respects the only valuable part of much of schooling: the discipline to do something pointless, arduous, and useless because doing so benefits you for unintuitive reasons. If you teach people to shut up and focus when they're children they'll be finishing calculus before they're halfway through high school, in addition to the general good this will do society at large.

And they'll have absolutely no idea how to apply that knowledge to the real world.

How does "teach children to study something boring (though we've established calculus is awesome and probably magic, so bad example there) and complicated because doing so benefits them" work out to "they'll have no idea how to use what they learn"?

 whembly wrote:
For what's its worth, calculus came really easy to me.

Got my arse kicked in Algebra.

Calculus is easy, what kills people is the Algebra. More focus should be put on that part of it.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Care to elaborate on this? Because the school systems in Asia are either third world systems, with all the attendant problems, or are Japan, which is worse about discipline than most American schools, and is all-around a pretty substandard system, which fudges the numbers by ensuring only the best students take their standard tests so as to appear better on paper.

Japan's problem isn't only discipline, but with the basic way in which they handle learning. And you can throw South Korea as having the same problem, even more so.

The problem being that without the discipline to act against impulse when it is beneficial to do so, learning something to any great degree is impossible without some overwhelming fascination with it.

Without some kind of motivation or internal drive for the kid (like a valuve placed on learning for its own sake) then what you're really doing is telling kids to sit down, shut up and write what teacher puts on the board.

How does "teach children to study something boring (though we've established calculus is awesome and probably magic, so bad example there) and complicated because doing so benefits them" work out to "they'll have no idea how to use what they learn"?

If calculus reads to you as if it were magic then you got taught really terribly. Maybe the result of just sitting there, staying quiet and writing down whatever teacher wrote on the board.

When you compare doing the same thing with Calculus vs doing it with Algebra it kinda seems like magic. The difference in difficulty is night and day.

I don't remember what i was exactly, but there was something I learned in Calculus that is another way to solve for something in Algebra too, maybe it was Derivatives and the Power Rule. Anyway, when I learned that in Calculus every thing was so clear. Algebra had taught me the long convoluted way to do it. And that made me absolutly livid for about 5 days.

 sebster wrote:

Japan's problem isn't only discipline, but with the basic way in which they handle learning. And you can throw South Korea as having the same problem, even more so.

Right? I just threw the discipline bit in there because it seems it's a common misconception that their discipline is stricter, when the teachers and administrators actually have their hands tied quite a bit more than in the US. The system is more exacting, yes, but in a weird, excessively punitive way.

Without some kind of motivation or internal drive for the kid (like a valuve placed on learning for its own sake) then what you're really doing is telling kids to sit down, shut up and write what teacher puts on the board.

A strength of will is an internal drive, and a far more reliable one than some abstract "respect for learning", and I think you're taking a bit of a leap to conflate learning a topic because you need to with rote memorization of what is effectively trivia. I think the practice of straight up "teaching the test" is despicable and undermining, and have no regard for most matters where study amounts to memorization of specific entries rather than requiring the understanding of a system.

I mean, the only academic topics I've ever been so fascinated with as to actually learn anything meaningful about them on my own terms have been Latin (and to a lesser extent, several other languages, none of which I learned to any real proficiency) and programming, and only the former managed to remain engaging in the form of a class. I've only rarely been interested in any subject, but even what few shreds of discipline I had were enough to sit down and learn to do something pointless (and almost every subject is rather pointless in terms of its own merits, at the highschool or lower levels, anyways) for the sake of passing a class.

The discipline to work, even when it seems pointless, or understand a complex subject even though doing so can be arduous and boring, is far more valuable and possessed of much broader usefulness than some vague idea of fostering learning for the enjoyment of learning.

If calculus reads to you as if it were magic then you got taught really terribly. Maybe the result of just sitting there, staying quiet and writing down whatever teacher wrote on the board.

It's a running joke, and meant more along the lines of "it accomplishes magic" than it literally being some unknowable and eldritch force.

IIRC the Japanese culture itself is what is actually the restrictive part, not the schools or anything they have in place.

Any culture that finds it socially acceptable or, god-forbid, culturally mandated to commit suicide in certain situations is just disgusting. I like many parts of Japanese culture, but that one thing really gets my goat.

Failing a placement test, losing your job, etc... Silly stuff to kill yourself over. Not that anything ever would make it acceptable.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

The discipline to work, even when it seems pointless, or understand a complex subject even though doing so can be arduous and boring, is far more valuable and possessed of much broader usefulness than some vague idea of fostering learning for the enjoyment of learning.

So your argument is that people should do what they're told?

 dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

The discipline to work, even when it seems pointless, or understand a complex subject even though doing so can be arduous and boring, is far more valuable and possessed of much broader usefulness than some vague idea of fostering learning for the enjoyment of learning.

So your argument is that people should do what they're told?

Not a bad start, but it shouldn't be all you do. We don't want to make mindless zombies.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Right? I just threw the discipline bit in there because it seems it's a common misconception that their discipline is stricter, when the teachers and administrators actually have their hands tied quite a bit more than in the US. The system is more exacting, yes, but in a weird, excessively punitive way.

Sure, but you've now managed to talk past the problems of Asian schooling without actually addressing why your idea of discipline won't just end up being exactly the same thing.

A strength of will is an internal drive, and a far more reliable one than some abstract "respect for learning", and I think you're taking a bit of a leap to conflate learning a topic because you need to with rote memorization of what is effectively trivia. I think the practice of straight up "teaching the test" is despicable and undermining, and have no regard for most matters where study amounts to memorization of specific entries rather than requiring the understanding of a system.

That's my point. That if you just instil discipline to study without fostering any kind of curiousity or drive to understand what's actually being taught, then you're just going to produce kids who will sit there, shut up and memorise what you tell them.

And discipline comes when someone has something to work towards. Instruct me to dig a hole and fill it in again and with five minutes I'll be bitching that my back is sore and goofing off. But if I have a strong personal reason of my own to dig a hole and fill it in again (say perhaps to bury a body) then I'm not even going to notice the hard work until I'm done.

Teaching kids the value of knowledge and the ability to learn, and you'll be surprised how much they'll find out on their own, without anyone needing to crack a whip.

It's a running joke, and meant more along the lines of "it accomplishes magic" than it literally being some unknowable and eldritch force.

Cool. I largely got it the first time around but it seemed such a neat way of wrapping up my point on rote learning that I just couldn't resist

dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

The discipline to work, even when it seems pointless, or understand a complex subject even though doing so can be arduous and boring, is far more valuable and possessed of much broader usefulness than some vague idea of fostering learning for the enjoyment of learning.

So your argument is that people should do what they're told?

Not exactly, or exclusively. People should act according to the situation, not their impulses. If the sitation requires following orders, then they should follow orders, even if they'd rather not. There's obviously conflict in an actual situation, which is necessarily more complex, but as a general rule of thumb following an authority figure whom you are obligated to follow is usually a better course of action than flagrantly ignoring them because you'd rather, say, sleep all day.

Grey Templar wrote:IIRC the Japanese culture itself is what is actually the restrictive part, not the schools or anything they have in place.

Any culture that finds it socially acceptable or, god-forbid, culturally mandated to commit suicide in certain situations is just disgusting. I like many parts of Japanese culture, but that one thing really gets my goat.

Failing a placement test, losing your job, etc... Silly stuff to kill yourself over. Not that anything ever would make it acceptable.

Japanese culture is weird, and not in the wacky way people often think. Ritual suicide makes sense for leadership in a more militaristic and primitive context (Roman nobility was expected to kill themselves or have one of their followers kill them to avoid the disgrace and torture surrender or capture would bring, for instance; also something of a moralistic justification of slavery for them: "slaves surrendered rather than die, and so are immoral, justifying their mistreatment"), but it's obviously out of place in a modern society. I think part of the responsibility for its prevalence in Japanese culture goes back to the whole mythical samurai image created by the fascist government as a piece of military propaganda, but it also highlights a darker side-effect of discipline (when understanding of why discipline is such a virtue is incomplete or lacking entirely): the propensity to shrug off and ignore stress-inducing circumstances without rectifying the cause of the stress when one is able to bear discomfort instead of just lashing out immediately. Most of the time, the situation changes on its own, so powering through stress rarely results in such long-term misery that unhealthy breaks occur (suicide, spree killing, etc), but when it doesn't abate, or when it gets pushed up a notch or ten on an already strained individual, then you get bad situations, to put it lightly.

 sebster wrote:

Sure, but you've now managed to talk past the problems of Asian schooling without actually addressing why your idea of discipline won't just end up being exactly the same thing.
...

That's my point. That if you just instil discipline to study without fostering any kind of curiousity or drive to understand what's actually being taught, then you're just going to produce kids who will sit there, shut up and memorise what you tell them.

And discipline comes when someone has something to work towards. Instruct me to dig a hole and fill it in again and with five minutes I'll be bitching that my back is sore and goofing off. But if I have a strong personal reason of my own to dig a hole and fill it in again (say perhaps to bury a body) then I'm not even going to notice the hard work until I'm done.

Teaching kids the value of knowledge and the ability to learn, and you'll be surprised how much they'll find out on their own, without anyone needing to crack a whip.

Discipline is acting without immediate and obvious personal interest. Knowing that something needs to be done should be sufficient motivation to do it, with a proper amount of self-discipline. Interest makes it a lot easier, sure, but discipline should prevail even in its absence.

I don't see how that conflicts with subjects not being rote memorization. That seems far more an issue of how understanding is tested: if it's easier to game the test and just memorize exactly what it wants, people are going to do that. To encourage actually learning a subject both the test and the teaching methods should be focused on that understanding, instead of getting good with a few specific scenarios. I didn't need (and certainly didn't have) an interest in chemistry in college (taking it in highschool rather killed any interest I may have once had in it) to understand it better than anyone else in the class (to the point that in the labs people would sooner ask me for instruction than refer to the manual (which I didn't own) or the teacher), but I certainly would have benefitted from the discipline to actually do the work instead of just acing the tests, for instance.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Not exactly, or exclusively. People should act according to the situation, not their impulses.

The situation, apparently, doesn't include the acting party.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

If the sitation requires following orders, then they should follow orders, even if they'd rather not. There's obviously conflict in an actual situation, which is necessarily more complex, but as a general rule of thumb following an authority figure whom you are obligated to follow is usually a better course of action than flagrantly ignoring them because you'd rather, say, sleep all day.

The word you're looking for isn't "better" it is "easier".

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Discipline is acting without immediate and obvious personal interest. Knowing that something needs to be done should be sufficient motivation to do it, with a proper amount of self-discipline. Interest makes it a lot easier, sure, but discipline should prevail even in its absence.

Simply doing something because it must be done, but with no interest or appreciation for it will produce people who once studied enough to know how to do calculus, but have since forgotten all of it. People who read How to Kill a Mockingbird in year 9 and The Great Gatsby in year 10, and nothing ever since. People who's entire economic knowledge is a vague recollection of demand and supply graphs from year 8. People who remember that water is H2O, but no appreciation of how the scientific method is used to learn more about our world every day.

Actually expanding on that basic knowledge requires some level of interest, some level of personal motivation. For people to actively seek to learn past highschool.

I don't see how that conflicts with subjects not being rote memorization.

Really?

That seems far more an issue of how understanding is tested: if it's easier to game the test and just memorize exactly what it wants, people are going to do that. To encourage actually learning a subject both the test and the teaching methods should be focused on that understanding, instead of getting good with a few specific scenarios.

Yes, and focusing on that is exactly what schooling should be. To the extent that discipline is needed for that it should be developed, but no more.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When you compare doing the same thing with Calculus vs doing it with Algebra it kinda seems like magic. The difference in difficulty is night and day.

I don't remember what i was exactly, but there was something I learned in Calculus that is another way to solve for something in Algebra too, maybe it was Derivatives and the Power Rule. Anyway, when I learned that in Calculus every thing was so clear. Algebra had taught me the long convoluted way to do it. And that made me absolutly livid for about 5 days.

I'm older than dirt. I have a multibillion dollar poprtfolio and built multipage project cash flow models for fun. Yet I never, ever needed calculus for anything. I want to beat my first calculus teacher with a hammer.

Especially the same for my grad school micro economics. I love economics before I took his class. Now we hatz it more than catz.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:
Many of the greatest thinkers of all time were so educated.

Many of the "greatest thinkers of all time" also lived at a time when there was a lot less knowledge. Now we've reached the point where even a basic science/engineering education (IOW, an undergraduate degree) requires that you start day one of college with calculus/engineering physics/etc or you won't be able to finish even the basics in four years. And TBH current standards are already too low, cutting back even more on pre-college math and science in favor of "willpower" would be a disaster.

That's not what he's saying. He's talking about refocusing earlier education into more openly and efficiently doing what is in many respects the only valuable part of much of schooling: the discipline to do something pointless, arduous, and useless because doing so benefits you for unintuitive reasons. If you teach people to shut up and focus when they're children they'll be finishing calculus before they're halfway through high school, in addition to the general good this will do society at large.

bs. The average student doesn't need calculus, and can't handle it.

Education needs to teach them to understand, think, have a throough basic knolwedge of science, history, math, government and government theory, a foreign language, and basic economics (and evidently by my typing - typing!). Concentrate on that first. Once they graduate they then have the tools to move on to universeity or an excellent trade school (which is where the vast majority SHOULD be going). Sorry but you don't need a college degree for 75% of what college grads do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silverthorne wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
If you teach people to shut up and focus when they're children they'll be finishing calculus before they're halfway through high school

This seems like a pretty big assumption to make. Is there any credible evidence to support the idea that average students (not just a few exceptional ones) can finish calculus halfway through high school? When you answer, keep in mind that calculus for science and engineering is a three-semester subject in college.

Ironically Sir Pseudo made my point better than I could.

I'm a pilot- extra calculus wouldn't help me a stitch in life. My fiancee is a vet. A lot of schooling, sure, but physics? Not useful in the field. My sister is an ER nurse. Why would she need physics and calculus? All of these are valuable jobs to the community and the economy as a whole. All of them, with the possible exception of mine (gulp) will probably be around for a while. None of them need any kind of physics or calculus. Hardly any jobs in America need physics or calculus. I studied geology in college, just because I liked it, and I did have to take physics (calc-based) and calc through differential equations. I have never in life used those skills since I left college. The idea that we have to shape our entire educational system to support a very small group of professionals is pretty untenable. Give everybody something they can use- willpower. If you focus on that while they are young you haven't even left any years of education on the table. Willpower training isn't like a separate class or something, it's just holding kids in schools to exacting standards at all times- even in terms of non academic stuff. Posture, manners, correct speech. People didn't force that on kids because they were really important in themselves, they forced it on them because having to abide by all these rules and strictures builds willpower that later you can use for more productive things. The biggest problem with American kids in school today isn't that they are dumb, it's that they lack willpower. There is a great book, just called Willpower, that contains all the latest research in the field. It's very illuminating.

Exactly.

Replace calculus with basic programming.

dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Not exactly, or exclusively. People should act according to the situation, not their impulses.

The situation, apparently, doesn't include the acting party.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

If the situation requires following orders, then they should follow orders, even if they'd rather not. There's obviously conflict in an actual situation, which is necessarily more complex, but as a general rule of thumb following an authority figure whom you are obligated to follow is usually a better course of action than flagrantly ignoring them because you'd rather, say, sleep all day.

The word you're looking for isn't "better" it is "easier".

No. Discipline is the capacity to choose the better option over what your gut wants you to do, and the better option is determined by the specific circumstances of the situation.

sebster wrote:People who read How to Kill a Mockingbird in year 9 and The Great Gatsby in year 10, and nothing ever since.

Perhaps they shouldn't use dry, antiquated reading materials in English, then. Make them read A Song of Ice and Fire or something, and focus more on grammar and spelling than spurious analysis of no-longer-relevant books.

Actually expanding on that basic knowledge requires some level of interest, some level of personal motivation. For people to actively seek to learn past highschool.

To address this, and the larger list culled above: basically all of these matters are perfect examples of my premise: that about 98% of schooling is good for nothing but instilling the discipline to shut up and work or the basic language skills necessary to do so. Shift over the earlier focus to maximizing the efficacy of this fundamental aspect of schooling, and you can devote more of schooling to meaningful and productive study rather than just more instilling self-discipline.

Yes, and focusing on that is exactly what schooling should be. To the extent that discipline is needed for that it should be developed, but no more.

The thing is, as said above, when schooling ultimately already revolves around instilling self-discipline, we can clearly see that's the most important aspect of the current system. Improve it early on, and you can branch out and accomplish useful, meaningful study in high school, as its current task will already be done, meaning high school becomes a more productive period wherein topics may be studied to a greater degree in less time than a course that barely surpasses common trivia can today, as well as covering more technical topics (counting programming, engineering, and the like as "technical" here) fields. Basically, turn it into what college at its best can be.

Yeah, keep the reading relavent. Maybe have a couple classics, but make sure they also read contemporary books(that are also popular)

Seriously, who wants to read How to Kill a Mockingbird? Like maybe 10% of each class. Have them read something they'd actually like for a change.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, keep the reading relavent. Maybe have a couple classics, but make sure they also read contemporary books(that are also popular)

Seriously, who wants to read How to Kill a Mockingbird? Like maybe 10% of each class. Have them read something they'd actually like for a change.

Is this serious? Really? So the only literature we can learn from is that we enjoy? You're going to tell me John Grisham has as much to offer as Marcel Proust?

feth man, I can't even come back thats just so idiotic.

feth, I had to erase my comment 5 times just to make sure I'm not banned. And I'm still not sure getting banned isnt worth refuting the slowed things you've said.

Did I say we should only read what we enjoy for school?

No, but they should have some stuff that is enjoyable.


Its not hard to find good books that the students would enjoy that would also be qualified as good learning literature.

If Schools need a book that teaches X or illustrates Y, I'm sure they can find one that that would also actually be enjoyed. The fact they most of what is assigned is so-so as far as entertainment value goes shows a lack of imagination, or just lazyness. "We've always assigned this so no need to change it *hurr durr!"

Learning is always better when its fun and enjoyable. So people should try to make it that if its in any way possible.

I can kinda see Grey's point. I stopped going to English class my Junior year of high school, because it took me a couple hours to read Hawkin's "The Scarlet Letter" and meanwhile the rest of my class could BARELY plod through a chapter a week. Same issue in Senior English, we were doing readings from MacBeth out loud in class then rereading the covered material at home. How the hell hard is it to put just a DROP of emotion into freaking SHAKESPEARE!? Hellfire have a little fun with it if you have to do it.

Then again, I'm the weird kid who was at a high school reading level in elementary school, and by seventh grade my favorite novel was (and is) The Count of Monte Cristo. So perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask about this.

I had similar issues, being ahead of my scheduled reading level.

The hardest book I ever read was the Iliad and the Odyssey, and that was because it was an older translation. Big mistake

Text removed -- yakface

To whoever's about to deal with Rambo: can you just deal with him and leave the thread unlocked? It's a good enough discussion, and unrelated to his... outburst there.

Text removed -- yakface

Why would you try to get yourself banned when you seem to be only really bothered by one poster?

 Cheesecat wrote:
Why would you try to get yourself banned when you seem to be only really bothered by one poster?

Probably because someone stole the account and is trolling with it.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I can kinda see Grey's point. I stopped going to English class my Junior year of high school, because it took me a couple hours to read Hawkin's "The Scarlet Letter".

Hawthorne.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, keep the reading relavent. Maybe have a couple classics, but make sure they also read contemporary books(that are also popular)

Seriously, who wants to read How to Kill a Mockingbird? Like maybe 10% of each class. Have them read something they'd actually like for a change.

It's To Kill A Mockingbird. It's not an instruction manual. It's quite easy to read, very engaging and its themes are still relevant.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:Is this serious? Really? So the only literature we can learn from is that we enjoy? You're going to tell me John Grisham has as much to offer as Marcel Proust?

Well, to be fair, Proust is absolutely terrible. Grandpa Simpson's rambling story about the time he went ot Shelbyville and tied an onion to his belt (as was the style at the time) is about as good, and something like a million words shorter (sadly, not an exaggeration).

However, there are many school reading lists that could use an update. I'd personally like to see Bronte's Jane Eyre replaced by McCarthy's Blood Meridian and Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath replaced by East of Eden.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I can kinda see Grey's point. I stopped going to English class my Junior year of high school, because it took me a couple hours to read Hawkin's "The Scarlet Letter".

Hawthorne.

In my own defense I am on SERIOUS painkillers at present.

Heh, I always mess up that title

And no, its not a difficult read. Just not my cup of tea. and I can't really remember anyone that really found it a book they would have read if they didn't have to.

I could find another book that has the same themes that I liked better if I tried.


I suppose thats the real issue, static reading lists. Not enough options. Although there are definitly reasons to keep the number of books down to a level so the teacher can actually grade the student. Not much good if the book the student picked is one the teacher hasn't read.

So I guess its a real doozy of a problem with no real good answer. Need more books to have variety and to stay current, but at the same time the teachers need to be familar with the literature the assignments are being written about.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:In my own defense I am on SERIOUS painkillers at present.

And you can evidently see, so all must've gone well.

Grey Templar wrote:I suppose thats the real issue, static reading lists. Not enough options. Although there are definitly reasons to keep the number of books down to a level so the teacher can actually grade the student. Not much good if the book the student picked is one the teacher hasn't read.

So I guess its a real doozy of a problem with no real good answer. Need more books to have variety and to stay current, but at the same time the teachers need to be familar with the literature the assignments are being written about.

I think static reading lists are a necessity. Otherwise, it's very difficult to engage in a critical discussion. However, a selection of 3 or 4 novels and then having the class split into smaller groups, each with its own novel is one way, and could serve to give students some choice.

But I disagree with the "stay current" bit... I think that so long as the book has relatable themes that are current (the best ones will be generally timeless) that's all that matters. The actual publishing date shouldn't really be a determining factor in book selection.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:In my own defense I am on SERIOUS painkillers at present.

And you can evidently see, so all must've gone well.
.

My vision is in and out, and should begin to stabilize to "driving safe" in the next couple days, with full healing and final vision coming in around a month's time. 20/20 or better is a good bet.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Perhaps they shouldn't use dry, antiquated reading materials in English, then. Make them read A Song of Ice and Fire or something, and focus more on grammar and spelling than spurious analysis of no-longer-relevant books.

Absolutely no. Thinking isn't in memorising the tricks and quirks of english, either in the spelling or the grammar, but in the ability to consider and reflect on an argument made.

That 'spurious' analysis is what actually matters. Perhaps not in the form it was unfortunately taught to many - 'the corpses in the red badge of courage represent the reality of Henry's dream of a glorious death compared to the reality of such death' and all that nonsense. Not bullet points to be memorised and regurgitated in a text, but actual knowledge and beliefs to be taken from a book, and the ability to take those lessons and compare them to one's own life experiences for contemplation.

To address this, and the larger list culled above: basically all of these matters are perfect examples of my premise: that about 98% of schooling is good for nothing but instilling the discipline to shut up and work or the basic language skills necessary to do so. Shift over the earlier focus to maximizing the efficacy of this fundamental aspect of schooling, and you can devote more of schooling to meaningful and productive study rather than just more instilling self-discipline.

Absolutely not. The ability to think - to form coherent rational arguments and express them as such, is a critical skill. To just disregard that and claim school is about the discipline to shut up and develop language skills is totally fething barking mad.

And your decision to just cull all those individual points and just revert to repeating your base claim is pretty good evidence that you know, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, that your claim doesn't hold up at all.

YThe thing is, as said above, when schooling ultimately already revolves around instilling self-discipline, we can clearly see that's the most important aspect of the current system.

Circular poppycock. Schooling about instilling discipline, therefore we should focus on instilling discipline, therefore discipline is the most important thing.

Discipline is not the fething point. If it was, we'd just have marching drills for six hours a day. Learning to think fething matters.

If you don't get that basic fething thing, you cannot have a sensible opinion on education.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

No. Discipline is the capacity to choose the better option over what your gut wants you to do, and the better option is determined by the specific circumstances of the situation.

I'm still not sure why the self is not part of the "specific circumstances" of any given situation. I mean, as it stands, you're basically arguing that all people should do as they're told.

 sebster wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Perhaps they shouldn't use dry, antiquated reading materials in English, then. Make them read A Song of Ice and Fire or something, and focus more on grammar and spelling than spurious analysis of no-longer-relevant books.

Absolutely no. Thinking isn't in memorising the tricks and quirks of english, either in the spelling or the grammar, but in the ability to consider and reflect on an argument made.

That 'spurious' analysis is what actually matters. Perhaps not in the form it was unfortunately taught to many - 'the corpses in the red badge of courage represent the reality of Henry's dream of a glorious death compared to the reality of such death' and all that nonsense. Not bullet points to be memorised and regurgitated in a text, but actual knowledge and beliefs to be taken from a book, and the ability to take those lessons and compare them to one's own life experiences for contemplation.

While the ability to make up a random point and rationally support it with nonsense analysis of quotes and references is a valuable skill, or collection of skills (this is 100% of what I learned from AP English in highschool-make something up and rationally argue it), I think it is something of a problem that it gets conflated with a class that's also supposed to be teaching language skills and formal forms of writing as a sort of technical background for a lot of other classes.

What about the point of not using antiquated reading material? Even going beyond the stilted speech (an inevitable result of language shifting), they tend to be outright primitive in structure, coming from a time before the proper methods were really developed and refined. Like how really old movies are absolute nonsense more often than not. Shakespeare, for instance, was massively influential, yes, but his work is still rather rubbish besides the better elements of modern writing. Especially as plays are a ridiculous thing to be reading outside of studying how to write screenplays or the like.

Absolutely not. The ability to think - to form coherent rational arguments and express them as such, is a critical skill. To just disregard that and claim school is about the discipline to shut up and develop language skills is totally fething barking mad.

Two points: one, how much of that is true of the most rudimentary elements of education, where it pretty much revolves around taking years and years and years just to hammer the most basic elements of language and math into the students? Two, how does openly emphasizing self-discipline preclude any of that?

And your decision to just cull all those individual points and just revert to repeating your base claim is pretty good evidence that you know, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, that your claim doesn't hold up at all.

Actually, I just wanted to make the crack about reading material, and didn't think to copy/paste the rest of the list until after I'd deleted it (this phone lacks an undo feature, so I couldn't really fix that oversight without jumping through a whole bunch of hoops).

Circular poppycock. Schooling about instilling discipline, therefore we should focus on instilling discipline, therefore discipline is the most important thing.

Discipline is not the fething point. If it was, we'd just have marching drills for six hours a day. Learning to think fething matters.

If you don't get that basic fething thing, you cannot have a sensible opinion on education.

I never said schooling was coherently organized at this point, I just made a valuation of what it's doing based on my experiences. 99% of the material is, in and of itself, useless outside the context of simply being something on which to focus the actual lesson: the capacity to undertake an unpleasant and often arduous task which offers no clear purpose or benefit.

Perhaps my experiences are skewed a bit, as I've always been sharper than the system is built to accommodate (as in, never payed more than the scantest attention, never did any work, never studied, and proceeded to ace every test-the only thing that even began to challenge me was calculus, which was solved by simply paying attention instead of playing trials 2 on my laptop), rendering all the little learning tools they use nothing but pointless, repetitive tasks, which has led to my conclusion, looking back, that it was really about the one thing I lacked at the time: the discipline to do all those pointless little tasks anyways. Perhaps this is a flawed conclusion, but I think if they were at least open about the value of doing seemingly pointless tasks anyways things could improve dramatically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

No. Discipline is the capacity to choose the better option over what your gut wants you to do, and the better option is determined by the specific circumstances of the situation.

I'm still not sure why the self is not part of the "specific circumstances" of any given situation. I mean, as it stands, you're basically arguing that all people should do as they're told.

I'm really not. Perhaps the choice of the word "discipline" is what's confusing the matter? I've been trying to prefix it with "self-" when I remember. I'm arguing for the strength to do what is ultimately best for yourself (however you may decide on what you ultimately feel is best-not even restricting this to one specific and myopic category of benefit), even if your momentary impulses disagree.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

I'm really not. Perhaps the choice of the word "discipline" is what's confusing the matter?

No, its your description of "discipline".

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:What about the point of not using antiquated reading material? Even going beyond the stilted speech (an inevitable result of language shifting), they tend to be outright primitive in structure, coming from a time before the proper methods were really developed and refined. Like how really old movies are absolute nonsense more often than not. Shakespeare, for instance, was massively influential, yes, but his work is still rather rubbish besides the better elements of modern writing. Especially as plays are a ridiculous thing to be reading outside of studying how to write screenplays or the like.

That's the thing about timeless literature: it never gets antiquated.

Having said that, did you seriously just say that Shakespeare plays such as Hamlet are rubbish?

 dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

I'm really not. Perhaps the choice of the word "discipline" is what's confusing the matter?

No, its your description of "discipline".

How are you drawing this conclusion, particularly when I keep pointing out that that's not what I'm saying at all? I assumed the term I was using was the source, since it can have other connotations as well, but saying that "the strength to follow a longer term, rationally chosen purpose over immediate gratification of impulse" is advocating blind obedience is just sort of baffling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That's the thing about timeless literature: it never gets antiquated.

I disagree that "timeless literature" is a thing that exists. Old works tend to receive disproportionate praise simply for being the first halfway competent example of a genre, or theme, or whatever. This gives them no more value than their actual quality outside anything but a history class concerning itself with such trivia as who happened to do some now-common thing first.

Having said that, did you seriously just say that Shakespeare plays such as Hamlet are rubbish?

Beside the better elements of modern writing, yes. Hell, beside the better elements of writing in the 19th century, even. People get progressively better in every field, including the arts (except the ones where the "mainstream" elements gave up on quality hundreds of years ago, and have turned the field into one long string of "doing it wrong", because doing it right isn't a unique skill anymore).

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
While the ability to make up a random point and rationally support it with nonsense analysis of quotes and references is a valuable skill, or collection of skills (this is 100% of what I learned from AP English in highschool-make something up and rationally argue it), I think it is something of a problem that it gets conflated with a class that's also supposed to be teaching language skills and formal forms of writing as a sort of technical background for a lot of other classes.

Absolutely, make something up and rationally argue it - an absolutely essential skill. Far, far more important than learning i before e, except before c, and also a bunch of other exceptions.

What about the point of not using antiquated reading material? Even going beyond the stilted speech (an inevitable result of language shifting), they tend to be outright primitive in structure, coming from a time before the proper methods were really developed and refined. Like how really old movies are absolute nonsense more often than not. Shakespeare, for instance, was massively influential, yes, but his work is still rather rubbish besides the better elements of modern writing. Especially as plays are a ridiculous thing to be reading outside of studying how to write screenplays or the like.

I agree on modernising reading lists. Much of what is to be gained from reading a classic is about the history of writing (and therefore the dumbest thing to be giving to someone who by definition is only just starting to read).

Calling Shakespeare rather rubbish is kind of ridiculous, though. But I do agree that assigning his plays just to be reading rather than as something to be performed is bad teaching. In year 9 (I think it was in year 9, with Mrs Blair...) we broke off into groups to perform individual scenes from Romeo and Juliet. It worked well. In Yr 11 we just read MacBeth and wrote an essy on it. That was beyond pointless.

Two points: one, how much of that is true of the most rudimentary elements of education, where it pretty much revolves around taking years and years and years just to hammer the most basic elements of language and math into the students? Two, how does openly emphasizing self-discipline preclude any of that?

One - those rudimentary parts of education are complimentary to thinking. Maths is just a form of abstract thought, and through appreciating it you become more capable in other forms of abstract thought.

Two - the difference is in your earlier claims that discipline should be put first and foremost. Rather, discipline is only a means to an end.

Actually, I just wanted to make the crack about reading material, and didn't think to copy/paste the rest of the list until after I'd deleted it (this phone lacks an undo feature, so I couldn't really fix that oversight without jumping through a whole bunch of hoops).

Fair enough

I never said schooling was coherently organized at this point, I just made a valuation of what it's doing based on my experiences. 99% of the material is, in and of itself, useless outside the context of simply being something on which to focus the actual lesson: the capacity to undertake an unpleasant and often arduous task which offers no clear purpose or benefit.

Most knowledge gained in class isn't directly applicable. Unless you end up writing train timetables you'll never have to know exactly when the train leaving Pockipsie at 3:45 will pass the train leaving Bannockburn at 4:20. But the ability to take real world elements and break them down in to numbers and then use those numbers in calculations is absolutely essential.

So essential in fact, I reckon you take for granted how often you do it everyday.

Perhaps my experiences are skewed a bit, as I've always been sharper than the system is built to accommodate

Most of us are. The system is, afterall, designed to leave behind no more than the absolute least talented students, and that means the top 80% odd of kids will be bored in class.

Perhaps this is a flawed conclusion, but I think if they were at least open about the value of doing seemingly pointless tasks anyways things could improve dramatically.

It is perhaps a conclusion driven too much by personal experience, without taking in to account the system as a whole.

And look, I'm not saying education is perfect. Far from it. But I am saying that it is better than most people recognise, and that improvements have to be made with a clear understanding of what it is that's really important.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That's the thing about timeless literature: it never gets antiquated.

I disagree that "timeless literature" is a thing that exists. Old works tend to receive disproportionate praise simply for being the first halfway competent example of a genre, or theme, or whatever. This gives them no more value than their actual quality outside anything but a history class concerning itself with such trivia as who happened to do some now-common thing first.

The reason some stories are constantly repeated and others fade into obscurity is because the themes are still relevant to modern society that's why a story like Cinderella that is several hundred years old is still widely known by public as the themes of sibling rivalry and finding a partner

who is successful in life are still important to modern society, if Cinderella's motifs weren't still important to us most people wouldn't of heard of it.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Old works tend to receive disproportionate praise simply for being the first halfway competent example of a genre, or theme, or whatever. This gives them no more value than their actual quality outside anything but a history class concerning itself with such trivia as who happened to do some now-common thing first.

I'm not even going to engage with your commentary, as it is a celebration of ignorance on all levels. You have simultaneously revealed that you have no credible understanding of literature, its history or its value as an art form. I'm not sure exactly how your experiences with literature have managed to obviously fail you so spectacularly, but I'm truly sorry for your loss.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Old works tend to receive disproportionate praise simply for being the first halfway competent example of a genre, or theme, or whatever. This gives them no more value than their actual quality outside anything but a history class concerning itself with such trivia as who happened to do some now-common thing first.

I'm not even going to engage with your commentary, as it is a celebration of ignorance on all levels. You have simultaneously revealed that you have no credible understanding of literature, its history or its value as an art form. I'm not sure exactly how your experiences with literature have managed to obviously fail you so spectacularly, but I'm truly sorry for your loss.

You're arguing that people, informed by the successes and failings of their predecessors, cannot and do not surpass their achievements with great regularity? Do you believe that Edison's Conquest of Mars is better than modern sci-fi by virtue of being the first to use basically every standard theme that is sci-fi?

Looking back at historical literature from a modern context, I see no way one can reasonably put it on a pedestal above later, superior works. It's only intrinsic value comes in the context of specifically studying the history of literature, which is far from a useful pursuit. I don't need to know the history of algorithmic math to program, nor do I need to know the history of western music theory to utilize its teachings. Likewise there is no value to a general education to be derived from historically significant works that are nonetheless surpassed in quality by later, but less historically significant, ones.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Old works tend to receive disproportionate praise simply for being the first halfway competent example of a genre, or theme, or whatever. This gives them no more value than their actual quality outside anything but a history class concerning itself with such trivia as who happened to do some now-common thing first.

I'm not even going to engage with your commentary, as it is a celebration of ignorance on all levels. You have simultaneously revealed that you have no credible understanding of literature, its history or its value as an art form. I'm not sure exactly how your experiences with literature have managed to obviously fail you so spectacularly, but I'm truly sorry for your loss.

Well I suppose he could be making the high minded argument that Shakespeare for example was in all reality low brow entertainment for the masses with an over reliance on a good fart joke (Chaucer is responsible the first fart joke in English to be written down as I recall) then mixing that argument with the actual good point that none of what we call classics today were written as anything but entertainment, or occasionally a public way to insult one's enemies (see The Divine Comedy) with English teachers liking to add layer upon layer of symbolism that most likely isn't there. Forgetting the actual audience and purpose of a work is also endemic to film studies who again like to pull symbolism from the ether to make things seem more important and nuanced then they actually probably are. (Hitchcock and a few other auteurs being exceptions that prove the rule)

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

How are you drawing this conclusion, particularly when I keep pointing out that that's not what I'm saying at all?

I'm not drawing a conclusion, I am telling you about the source of my disagreement.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

I assumed the term I was using was the source, since it can have other connotations as well, but saying that "the strength to follow a longer term, rationally chosen purpose over immediate gratification of impulse" is advocating blind obedience is just sort of baffling.

You didn't say that, at least according to my reading of the thread.

On the subject of Calculus, I made A's and B's at University, but hated every minute of it.

Since getting my Chemical Engineering degree, I used Calculus exactly once at work (needed an equation to determine the actual volume of a cylindrical tank on it's side relative to the % level indicated by the height of the liquid). Now, a simple google search and Wala. I wish more time had been spent on Statistics and process data analysis. I do that gak all day.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That's the thing about timeless literature: it never gets antiquated.

I disagree that "timeless literature" is a thing that exists. Old works tend to receive disproportionate praise simply for being the first halfway competent example of a genre, or theme, or whatever. This gives them no more value than their actual quality outside anything but a history class concerning itself with such trivia as who happened to do some now-common thing first.

The reason some stories are constantly repeated and others fade into obscurity is because the themes are still relevant to modern society that's why a story like Cinderella that is several hundred years old is still widely known by public as the themes of sibling rivalry and finding a partner

who is successful in life are still important to modern society, if Cinderella's motifs weren't still important to us most people wouldn't of heard of it.

I'm going to disagree with a particular point. Cinderella is famous not because of its motifs and lessons, but rather because Disney made a movie out of it years ago. There are plenty of other fairie tales, with a variety of good and useful lessons, but they are almost unknown to the majority of people. How many people could name more than 3 of Aesop's Fables, for instance, if even that many?

Just a small nitpick.


As to "timeless quality" of assigned reading material, such an ephemeral and ultimately subjective quality really should have no bearing on educational material selection. I nearly failed several years of english classes in high school, not because I didn't understand or could not do the material, but because the books we read were SO FRELLING AWFUL. Their Eyes were Watching God, As I lay Dying, The Great gods damned Gatsby... ugh. Just... ugh. We finally do a reading of Ender's Game and how much discussion did we have? 0 days. Not one minute. We were asked to read the book, but not given a single assignment, lecture, lesson, test or quiz to actually determine if we did or not. End result being that a book I read in two days was completely irrelevant, while reading Romeo and Juliet for the billionth frelling time and talking about it for close to 6 weeks. I'm a fan of the Bard, mind, but seriously... can we at least give kids some new options that haven't been made into a million bad movies? Can I get some King Lear maybe? Some Twelfth Night? No no, R&J, Hammie, and MacMommyissues. I think we covered each of those books twice each during my time in middle and high school.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That's the thing about timeless literature: it never gets antiquated.

I disagree that "timeless literature" is a thing that exists. Old works tend to receive disproportionate praise simply for being the first halfway competent example of a genre, or theme, or whatever. This gives them no more value than their actual quality outside anything but a history class concerning itself with such trivia as who happened to do some now-common thing first.

The reason some stories are constantly repeated and others fade into obscurity is because the themes are still relevant to modern society that's why a story like Cinderella that is several hundred years old is still widely known by public as the themes of sibling rivalry and finding a partner

who is successful in life are still important to modern society, if Cinderella's motifs weren't still important to us most people wouldn't of heard of it.

I'm going to disagree with a particular point. Cinderella is famous not because of its motifs and lessons, but rather because Disney made a movie out of it years ago. There are plenty of other fairie tales, with a variety of good and useful lessons, but they are almost unknown to the majority of people. How many people could name more than 3 of Aesop's Fables, for instance, if even that many?

Just a small nitpick.

I disagree if people didn't find the themes in the Disney adaptation of Cinderella important to the there lives it wouldn't be a success, why would parents still show the movie to there kids if they didn't think there was anything important to be learned from it?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That's the thing about timeless literature: it never gets antiquated.

I disagree that "timeless literature" is a thing that exists. Old works tend to receive disproportionate praise simply for being the first halfway competent example of a genre, or theme, or whatever. This gives them no more value than their actual quality outside anything but a history class concerning itself with such trivia as who happened to do some now-common thing first.

The reason some stories are constantly repeated and others fade into obscurity is because the themes are still relevant to modern society that's why a story like Cinderella that is several hundred years old is still widely known by public as the themes of sibling rivalry and finding a partner

who is successful in life are still important to modern society, if Cinderella's motifs weren't still important to us most people wouldn't of heard of it.

I'm going to disagree with a particular point. Cinderella is famous not because of its motifs and lessons, but rather because Disney made a movie out of it years ago. There are plenty of other fairie tales, with a variety of good and useful lessons, but they are almost unknown to the majority of people. How many people could name more than 3 of Aesop's Fables, for instance, if even that many?

Just a small nitpick.

I disagree if people didn't find the themes in the Disney adaptation of Cinderella important to the there lives it wouldn't be a success, why would parents still show the movie to there kids if they didn't think there was anything important to be learned from it?

Because it is a cartoon, and children like cartoons. If it were the story itself, you would find other versions of the story that were equally as successful, and yet the Julie Andrews version is rarely seen and even contemporary releases see nowhere close to the success of the Disney version. Even the story has changed from the original version(s). Prior to 1967 the Cinderella story completely lacked a fairy godmother, pumpkin coach (which makes today's reference of 'turning into a pumpkin at midnight'), or glass slippers! Basically, Disney's version is the most famous because it built on Grimm (the most famous but certainly not original version of the time) and even then, changed the story that the Grimm brothers actually penned into something that was appropriate to children. Spoiler alert: in the Hans Christian Anderson story of the Little Mermaid, Ariel dies. And yet we the most popular version has her living Happily Ever After.

But seriously, 3 Aesop's Fables without looking it up.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Replace calculus with basic programming.

Now that is a GREAT idea.

Actually, it should be broken up into two distinct subject matters:
1) A Logic Class - - Explain the logic in basic programming... if-then statements, do-while, subroutines...etc...
2) Basic Programming - - can be anything, VB, HTML, Java, Perl... just a taste.

The only books i liked in class(Brave New world, Lord of the flies and The jungle book) we all dropped because people didnt like it.

 whembly wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Replace calculus with basic programming.

Now that is a GREAT idea.

Actually, it should be broken up into two distinct subject matters:
1) A Logic Class - - Explain the logic in basic programming... if-then statements, do-while, subroutines...etc...
2) Basic Programming - - can be anything, VB, HTML, Java, Perl... just a taste.

That is a really good idea.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Replace calculus with basic programming.

Now that is a GREAT idea.

Actually, it should be broken up into two distinct subject matters:
1) A Logic Class - - Explain the logic in basic programming... if-then statements, do-while, subroutines...etc...
2) Basic Programming - - can be anything, VB, HTML, Java, Perl... just a taste.

That is a really good idea.

Thanks... I don't know if I'd get rid of Calculus. While it might not be used in whatever profession you end up, at least it gives the brain some "excercise". I mean... isn't that the point at school? I fething hated Shakespare in my English class, but I understand why it's important in a literary sense.

However, I'd STRONGLY advocate at least some sort of logic class in each major phases of education, because it's so integral to our everyday life.

Elements of Calculus could be worked into Algebra. More focus needs to be put on teaching Algebra and making sure students get it. Possibly introducing certain concepts earlier than they are.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Old works tend to receive disproportionate praise simply for being the first halfway competent example of a genre, or theme, or whatever. This gives them no more value than their actual quality outside anything but a history class concerning itself with such trivia as who happened to do some now-common thing first.

I'm not even going to engage with your commentary, as it is a celebration of ignorance on all levels. You have simultaneously revealed that you have no credible understanding of literature, its history or its value as an art form. I'm not sure exactly how your experiences with literature have managed to obviously fail you so spectacularly, but I'm truly sorry for your loss.

Well I suppose he could be making the high minded argument that Shakespeare for example was in all reality low brow entertainment for the masses with an over reliance on a good fart joke (Chaucer is responsible the first fart joke in English to be written down as I recall) then mixing that argument with the actual good point that none of what we call classics today were written as anything but entertainment, or occasionally a public way to insult one's enemies (see The Divine Comedy) with English teachers liking to add layer upon layer of symbolism that most likely isn't there. Forgetting the actual audience and purpose of a work is also endemic to film studies who again like to pull symbolism from the ether to make things seem more important and nuanced then they actually probably are. (Hitchcock and a few other auteurs being exceptions that prove the rule)

That wasn't what I was arguing, but it is one of the things my argument is predicated on. I suppose I take it as a bit of a given. Considering that I all but said literary criticism and analysis is making up a random point and then making a rational argument as to why a book really means the thing you just made up, I think it's safe to say I don't have a high opinion of symbolism and whatnot being an integral part of works.

To put it simply: the books hailed as classics today were just entertainment, and in the case of Shakespeare very low-brow and often nonsensical entertainment, who are given undeserved priority and praise over more modern, better written works simply by virtue of having done a given theme or cliche or genre first, or at least been the first halfway competent example thereof.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Old works tend to receive disproportionate praise simply for being the first halfway competent example of a genre, or theme, or whatever. This gives them no more value than their actual quality outside anything but a history class concerning itself with such trivia as who happened to do some now-common thing first.

I'm not even going to engage with your commentary, as it is a celebration of ignorance on all levels. You have simultaneously revealed that you have no credible understanding of literature, its history or its value as an art form. I'm not sure exactly how your experiences with literature have managed to obviously fail you so spectacularly, but I'm truly sorry for your loss.

You're arguing that people, informed by the successes and failings of their predecessors, cannot and do not surpass their achievements with great regularity? Do you believe that Edison's Conquest of Mars is better than modern sci-fi by virtue of being the first to use basically every standard theme that is sci-fi?

Looking back at historical literature from a modern context, I see no way one can reasonably put it on a pedestal above later, superior works. It's only intrinsic value comes in the context of specifically studying the history of literature, which is far from a useful pursuit. I don't need to know the history of algorithmic math to program, nor do I need to know the history of western music theory to utilize its teachings. Likewise there is no value to a general education to be derived from historically significant works that are nonetheless surpassed in quality by later, but less historically significant, ones.

I think this is ultimately a question then of determining quality, which is highly subjective. However, literature, like all art, does not necessarily improve through refinement like science. For example, Philip K. Dick was one of the most important "idea men" in science fiction, but honestly his writing is something that would be expected out of a middle-of-the-pack seventh grader.

However, to think that something is superior because it is newer is an indescribable fallacy.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Well I suppose he could be making the high minded argument that Shakespeare for example was in all reality low brow entertainment for the masses with an over reliance on a good fart joke (Chaucer is responsible the first fart joke in English to be written down as I recall) then mixing that argument with the actual good point that none of what we call classics today were written as anything but entertainment, or occasionally a public way to insult one's enemies (see The Divine Comedy) with English teachers liking to add layer upon layer of symbolism that most likely isn't there. Forgetting the actual audience and purpose of a work is also endemic to film studies who again like to pull symbolism from the ether to make things seem more important and nuanced then they actually probably are. (Hitchcock and a few other auteurs being exceptions that prove the rule)

Shakespeare was marketed for the masses, and it was written to catpure their attention, but it was most definitely not written exclusively for them. Romeo and Juliet opens with a fight and MacBeth opens with witches and magic in order to capture a low-brow audience's attention early on. However, the themes throughout both are definitely written for someone capable of critical analysis. That's what makes a lot of his writing legendary: it works on many levels. English teachers do not add the layers of symbolism, it is already there. Nobody "lucks" into a concentration like that.

streamdragon wrote:I'm a fan of the Bard, mind, but seriously... can we at least give kids some new options that haven't been made into a million bad movies? Can I get some King Lear maybe? Some Twelfth Night? No no, R&J, Hammie, and MacMommyissues. I think we covered each of those books twice each during my time in middle and high school.

This may be where the education system differs for us. In BC, Canada, King Lear and Twelfth Night are both taught in schools (so are R&J, Hamlet and MacMommyissues, which, btw, is my new favourite way to describe that play).

Weird, I got Macbeth (which I enjoyed) and Romeo and Juliet (which I found boring) in high school.

Well as long as you don't call The Scottish Play by name.

Scottish Play?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Scottish Play?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scottish_Play

The Scottish Play and the The Bard's Play are euphemisms for William Shakespeare's Macbeth. The first is a reference to the play's Scottish setting, the second a reference to Shakespeare's popular nickname. According to a theatrical superstition, called the Scottish curse, speaking the name Macbeth outside a theatre will cause disaster. A variation of the superstition forbids direct quotation of the play (except during rehearsals) while inside a theater.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Scottish Play?

It's set in Scotland but was made by famous English playwright William Shatner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That's the thing about timeless literature: it never gets antiquated.

I disagree that "timeless literature" is a thing that exists. Old works tend to receive disproportionate praise simply for being the first halfway competent example of a genre, or theme, or whatever. This gives them no more value than their actual quality outside anything but a history class concerning itself with such trivia as who happened to do some now-common thing first.

The reason some stories are constantly repeated and others fade into obscurity is because the themes are still relevant to modern society that's why a story like Cinderella that is several hundred years old is still widely known by public as the themes of sibling rivalry and finding a partner

who is successful in life are still important to modern society, if Cinderella's motifs weren't still important to us most people wouldn't of heard of it.

I'm going to disagree with a particular point. Cinderella is famous not because of its motifs and lessons, but rather because Disney made a movie out of it years ago. There are plenty of other fairie tales, with a variety of good and useful lessons, but they are almost unknown to the majority of people. How many people could name more than 3 of Aesop's Fables, for instance, if even that many?

Just a small nitpick.

I disagree if people didn't find the themes in the Disney adaptation of Cinderella important to the there lives it wouldn't be a success, why would parents still show the movie to there kids if they didn't think there was anything important to be learned from it?

Because it is a cartoon, and children like cartoons. If it were the story itself, you would find other versions of the story that were equally as successful, and yet the Julie Andrews version is rarely seen and even contemporary releases see nowhere close to the success of the Disney version. Even the story has changed from the original version(s). Prior to 1967 the Cinderella story completely lacked a fairy godmother, pumpkin coach (which makes today's reference of 'turning into a pumpkin at midnight'), or glass slippers! Basically, Disney's version is the most famous because it built on Grimm (the most famous but certainly not original version of the time) and even then, changed the story that the Grimm brothers actually penned into something that was appropriate to children. Spoiler alert: in the Hans Christian Anderson story of the Little Mermaid, Ariel dies. And yet we the most popular version has her living Happily Ever After.

But seriously, 3 Aesop's Fables without looking it up.

While I do agree that TV cartoons are a more stimulating medium than say a book, which is probably why the Disney adaption is the most popular Cinderella story also the Julie Andrews version was released 7 years later and probably audiences thought that 1950 cartoon version did

the job well enough plus the story's simplicity makes it ideal for children so the kid friendly cartoon medium makes more sense. Also the Grimm's fairy tales in general are usually darker than the Disney variants I think a lot of parents pick the Disney variants specifically for this reason.

 WarOne wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Scottish Play?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scottish_Play

The Scottish Play and the The Bard's Play are euphemisms for William Shakespeare's Macbeth. The first is a reference to the play's Scottish setting, the second a reference to Shakespeare's popular nickname. According to a theatrical superstition, called the Scottish curse, speaking the name Macbeth outside a theatre will cause disaster. A variation of the superstition forbids direct quotation of the play (except during rehearsals) while inside a theater.

Hmmm, never heard it called by that name.

 whembly wrote:

However, I'd STRONGLY advocate at least some sort of logic class in each major phases of education, because it's so integral to our everyday life.

How do you teach that reliably? Formal logic is easy to teach, but it will be about as useful to most people as calculus.

But informal logic, how do you construct a class around that? I mean, if you didn't learn informal logic in the course of growing up, then no educator can help you.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Considering that I all but said literary criticism and analysis is making up a random point and then making a rational argument as to why a book really means the thing you just made up, I think it's safe to say I don't have a high opinion of symbolism and whatnot being an integral part of works.

They aren't integral parts of the works involved. Literature is used in order to force you to make an argument, in an attempt to teach you how to do so.

The concepts of rationally thinking through a problem can apply to every decision you make. And would at the very least improve their ability to learn other stuff.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Considering that I all but said literary criticism and analysis is making up a random point and then making a rational argument as to why a book really means the thing you just made up, I think it's safe to say I don't have a high opinion of symbolism and whatnot being an integral part of works.

Then you should read better books. I recommend East of Eden by John Steinbeck and Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Considering that I all but said literary criticism and analysis is making up a random point and then making a rational argument as to why a book really means the thing you just made up, I think it's safe to say I don't have a high opinion of symbolism and whatnot being an integral part of works.

Then you should read better books. I recommend East of Eden by John Steinbeck and Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy.

I haven't read Blood Meridian, but East of Eden is definitely a great call. That's a book where the symbolism and allusions to other great works (the Bible) actually add to the impact of the story and what can be taken from it.

Whereas it seems most people get their taste of symbolism through classics like Lord of the Flies. The problem is that Lord of the Flies works nicely as a straight story of boys descending to savagery, but the allegory that it all represents, while very nicely constructed, is very dated (even though it is a contemporary novel to East of Eden). As a result, kids get told about how Piggy is science and knowledge, and Simon is Christianity and all sounds very stilted and unappealing, as to a modern audience the straight story and the allegory don't really mesh well together.