OMG. I'm starting to believe hawkeye

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

The American Revolution was an anti-authoritarian revolution

Being told what to do by the King or a land owner and getting together with your neighbors to decide together how you can all work together for the common good are two completely different things.

Quote:

IF there was an extant, voluntary agreement of mutual assistance,
there is nothing rong with that.

Agreed. The act was also not Individualist, laissez faire capitalist, libertarian nor hedonistic

Quote:

In Old Colonial America, sometimes this was literally a matter of life n death

Often. And life was hard, keeping the spirits up so that the individual could drive on and get the work done so the he/she and the kids did not die usually required coming together on a regualr basis as a community in prayer, breaking bread, working together on a project, or just sharing a drink and stories. I think that the founders were a lot less individualistic then you seem to believe that they were.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

David wrote:

In Old Colonial America, sometimes this was literally a matter of life n death

hawkeye10 wrote:

Often. And life was hard, keeping the spirits up so that the individual could drive on and get the work done so the he/she and the kids did not die usually required coming together on a regualr basis as a community in prayer, breaking bread, working together on a project, or just sharing a drink and stories. I think that the founders were a lot less individualistic then you seem to believe that they were.

Individualism does not require ISOLATION. I hang around with friends on occasion.

I have the LIBERTY to leave when I feel like it and I have FUN at it.

David

0 Replies

It is worth noting how stupid Hawkeye's assertions are by pointing out that the founders were not a monolithic body of lock-step thinkers. They disagreed on many matters, which is why the constitution was achieved by compromise. It is stupid to claim that they all thought the same about all matters.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

Today's headline:

Quote:
Shrinking education funding calls for creative ways to prepare tomorrow's work force

They're no longer students, they're tomorrow's work force.

They aren't kids. They're commondities.

Stop the madness! Down with the collective!

The most beautiful thing about the little education I have is that it is paid for... The collective is not the problem... A collective would see in its children its own future, what it is actually working for... It is capital that wants something for nothing, including educated workers who have sealed themselves in debt for their educations so that to keep their honor and pay their bills they must commit themselves to slavery... That is the object of all debt when it is not to keep people alive who are without the means to live... it is about getting them to accept that their wages do not meet their needs even while they must promise their future wealth to have life in the moment... The poor cannot afford children at all, let alone taxes for education or anything else, but the taxes they pay relieve the rich of the taxes they should pay, so that the taxes the rich will not pay with the taxes the poor must pay equal a long continuing redistribution of wealth to the top... Where people must live on nothing they have the drive to educate themselves, and we are reduced to that if we will not be made slaves for the pleasure of knowledge... The capitalists will always act in like manor with everything including our government and resources... They want the benefit of without the expense of, and that is natural, but ultimately destructive of their goals...

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It is worth noting how stupid Hawkeye's assertions are by pointing out that the founders were not a monolithic body of lock-step thinkers. They disagreed on many matters, which is why the constitution was achieved by compromise. It is stupid to claim that they all thought the same about all matters.

They were in general agreement as to the good as a goal of government which is clearly stated in the preamble of the constitution.... They simply agreed without clear statement that private property and capital were the best means to achieve that social good in their economy, and they failed to recognize that if the people do not govern their economy then their economy will govern them... We all have to eat, live under shelter, and sleep in a bed... Those simple needs can be used in time to reduce all of humanity to slavery, living in hollows and roosts as much as animals, eating hand to mouth, having no expectation of happiness...

0 Replies

Well, I am with boomerang on this one.

The problems with treating education as a preparation for a future workforce are:

1) We're only guessing on what that future workforce will look like and how they will need to be prepared. 4 year universities can't even seem to make projections accurately about that when looking only 4 year out, so it's not likely that extending this motivation down to the beginnings of education will be helpful.

2) We also need leaders and innovators, and leaders and innovators need to be able to think independently. Are our private schools "preparing" the future leaders by making sure they grow up in the company of other descendants of current leaders? I call bullshit on that.

3) In large measure the world will belong to these generations when they reach adulthood and I doubt they'll feel any obligation to be of service to our outdated ideas of what they're supposed to do with their lives.

As for higher education, I like the idea of having different paths to choose. If you want training, you go to certain schools (like tech schools and whatnot) and if you want education you go to a traditional university. Unfortunately in many cases, we get neither good, well rounded education nor career preparation. I foresee a lot more open, free range, self-educated students who take advantage of resources like free courseware and lectures on iTunes and internet access to libraries and information that was previously off limits to self-educators. They will show up at university or technical schools only to certify their knowledge in order to find employment, if they need it.

That's my 4.5 cents.

2 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

OMG. I'm starting to believe hawkeye

I know how you feel, every now and then I find myself agreeing with Gungasnake on something and I have to double-check my sanity. But just like politicians, even regular citizens can be right about some things and wrong about others.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

I just thought of something.

Our "future workforce" is not just people who are students now. But us.

If it cannot be projected even 4 years out what the future needs will be, how is that not affecting those of us who are working now, and will be working many many years to come?

As intelligent humans, we will all adapt to the needs at hand.

The future is not as scary as all that. We will all continue to put on our pants one leg at a time.
10 years ago, 50 years ago, etc. people wondered about what future workforce needs will be. Well, here we are, functioning and living the dream.

Training schools for work, and "education" for those who want to learn?

Personally, I think we've beaten this dead horse enough, and all realize the concepts of learning, education and training are not something that can put into neat little separate boxes.

What if these 2 types of schools were separated?
For sure you would have elitism then.

Let's get real. A person may have the desire to be, let's say a poet, but also realizes they need to make a living at something.
So what? They have to make a choice between learning how to do a job, or learn the art of poetry?
When I was in college, I majored in accounting, then business, but I sure took a number of enjoyable pychology, science and literature classes. I enjoyed them a lot more than my accounting classes, but understood I had to have one to get a job, but nothing was stopping me from doing both, at one school.

What if I had decided to be a writer, or a scientist? Perhaps taking accounting or business would have been my idea of fun, education for it's own sake.

Maybe I'm just too old, but has the world changed that much?

Do people taking higher education courses no longer have the ability to take a variety of classes?

It just doesn't seem that complicated to me.

4 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

Do people taking higher education courses no longer have the ability to take a variety of classes?

A few years ago I decided to go back to school and finish my degree (just to prove I could). Because I started so long ago (1979) I was grandfathered to finish a 3 year, general arts degree. I have no major (or minor for that matter). These days, my university only offers a 4 year (honours) degree and you have to have a major course of study with strictly enforced classes -- very few electives. My son has just finished a 4 year degree but it took him 6 years because he kept taking electives he found interesting but which did not count toward his major. I know a little bit about a lot of things -- but that doesn't seem to be appreciated in higher learning today. Some of the liberal arts colleges in the US may do things differently, may allow more free-ranging learning -- I'd be interested in knowing that if anyone is familiar with them.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

The problem with this nonsense is that you're fine with the collective when you want police protection, and firemen, and jet airliners, and automobiles, and reliable food souces

You're right. I'm a member of the collective and support most of it's programs. I did, however, surprise myself by agreeing with hawkeye, at least in part.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

Idea like that are seductive, certainly. As is usually the case, what you thought you were getting when you were seduced and what you get in the end are often not the same thing. In Hawkeye's particular case, he uses the term "collective" as a term of contempt to suggest that the ideas he condemns are held by a majority of unthinking, un-self-assertive victims of manipulation. He is an ultimate hypocrite because he, too, benefits from collective society, while living in a society which allows him the leisure and the freedom to metaphorically bite the hand that feeds him.

0 Replies

@Tai Chi,

Tai Chi wrote:

Some of the liberal arts colleges in the US may do things differently, may allow more free-ranging learning -- I'd be interested in knowing that if anyone is familiar with them.

My daughter is attending a small liberal arts school. She chose it because 1) they encourage you to dabble in just about everything before declaring a major in your jr year, and 2) she's the type of kid who will end up in some type of graduate degree program somewhere/some day.

I think most kids in larger universities are given a course requirements list with very few electives, particularly if you want to get done in 4 years.

0 Replies

@Fido,

I've been reading some things about classism in education, especially with "talented and gifted" programs. Interesting stuff.

I haven't read enough to form an opinion but I'm interested in reading/hearing/learning more about what people think.

1 Reply

an example of what I'd personally note as "educationally" based institutions. St. John's College is a liberal arts college with two U.S. campuses: one in Annapolis, Maryland and one in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Founded in 1696 as a preparatory school, King William's School, the school received a collegiate charter in 1784, making it one of the oldest institutions of higher learning in the United States. Despite its name, and the inclusion of Christian sacred texts and philosophers in its program, St. John's College has no religious affiliation. The four-year program of study, nearly all of which is mandatory, demands that students read and discuss the works of many of Western civilization's most prominent contributors to philosophy, theology, mathematics, science, music, poetry, and literature, such as Aristotle, Shakespeare, Descartes, and Einstein. In line with the views of the program's founders—who complained of "vocational interests" that "clutter" other colleges' curricula—"Johnnies", as St. John's students style themselves, usually value intellectual pursuits for their own sake, regardless of whether they have practical application. Tutorials (mathematics, language, and music), as well as Seminar and Laboratory, are discussion-based. In the Mathematics tutorial students often demonstrate propositions that mathematicians throughout various ages have laid out. In the Language tutorial student translations are presented (Ancient Greek is studied in the first two years and French for the last two). The tutorials, with Seminar and Laboratory, constitute the "classes". All classes, and in particular the Seminar, are considered formal exercises; consequently, students address one another, as well as their teachers, only by their last names during class. you seek employment training/skills after first receiving an education. Just my opinion.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Conformity is actually an evolutionary behavior.

Most individuals of a species follow the tried-and-true path. The outliers in the population will try unusual behaviors, and on rare occasions this pays off.

Just remember... you're and individual, just like everyone else.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

in what you desire is a job/career, get a BS in nursing, a BA in accounting, a PhD in engineering. that would be training, certainly not education.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

I've been reading some things about classism in education, especially with "talented and gifted" programs. Interesting stuff.

I haven't read enough to form an opinion but I'm interested in reading/hearing/learning more about what people think.

What specifically?

The "gifted" programs I'm familiar with are made up of kids from a pretty wide socio-economic range. Definitely not disproportionate to the classroom in general -- in fact if anything I think the rich/ upper-middle-class kids are under-represented.

In general, families with more education and more financial resources have kids who do better on tests, for sure. (Which is part of why I'm for quality public education, because each kid's family provides different levels of resources and support.)

1 Reply

@chai2,

The stuff I work on didn't even exist when I started college. Some of them didn't even exist five or 10 years ago.

Voice over IP? Nope.
Internet firewalls? Nope.
Collaboration software? Nope.
Antivirus? Nope.
Virtualization? Nope.

So if my education were to teach me how to do a thing, then my education was wasted. But my education taught me how to learn, so I'm able to pick up new ideas fairly quickly.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

in what you desire is a job/career, get a BS in nursing, a BA in accounting, a PhD in engineering. that would be training, certainly not education.

Bullshit.

Doctors and nurses have to learn new medicines and procedures all the time.
Engineers need to keep learning about new processes and materials all the time.

Not sure about accountants... although the guys at Enron certainly seemed to come up with some creative ****.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

For obvious reasons, TAG programs are not the forefront of the research I've been doing but I've seen it mentioned breifly and I've seen references to other studies/authors who have been looking at TAG.

Essentially it was seen as creating a school within a school, something that could suck up resources that shoud be distributed evenly among students. That not only was it bad for the general student body but that it is equally bad for the TAG students.

Like I said, I wasn't reading closely but if I come across the references again I'll post them for you.

2 Replies

OMG. I'm starting to believe hawkeye

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know