Another article on college debts, the stagnant economy,

Twenty is normal. The basket ball coach doubling as a teacher is actually required by law here. It's based around the (rather stupid) idea that someone who's required to be a certified teacher is less likely to be a pedophile  ^*

.

Also, if the teacher can't control twenty students, they probably shouldn't be teaching. The only time I've seen less was in a fourth year class in college as it was an optional course. Or lab work.

However this:

is something I'm willing to admit to believing with no reservations.

Fight smart, not fair.

Human life does not have objective worth, but certain skills and curricula do have objective benefits to humans. If you start with the premise that human life has worth, it follows that teaching people practical skills (how to build/fix things, feed themselves, et cetera) are more beneficial than others (how to debate what Hemingway really meant).

If you start with the premise that human life has no worth, then feel free to kill yourself.

That doesn't make sense. Not valuing human life isn't the same as not valuing my life.

Fight smart, not fair.

It makes you elitest if nothing else.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

No, it means I value my life and well being more than I value others. Elitist requires there to be an "us" or for me to consider myself part of a group that is worth more. I believe anyway, I could be using the wrong definition.

Fight smart, not fair.

You do, and this group can just involve you.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

Hm, I've heard both "selfish" and "sociopathic" to describe that view, but never elitist.

Eh, wondering off topic though.

Fight smart, not fair.

"True, but unfortunately the budget must balance. Should we drop studies like English or History? Neither of those are particularly needed for survival either." - Drunk Girlfriend

History is a bit more necessary than art, if only because people need to be educated about the world they live in. English is a grey area... stuff like essay writing and grammar are obviously useful, but stuff like literature is probably not that necessary.

I think we ought to focus more on the essentialls. Stuff like metaphorical "warmth" doesn't have to be from art, at least not as taught by schools.

I think being cultured is more important than essential survival skills, especially at a school.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

I disagree. All the cultured behaviors in the world won't save you if you survive a plane crash in the mountains. Survival skills will.

Yes, but you don't go to school to learn how to survive that. I figure you go to school to learn how to be a good citizen, and for that, being cultured is more important.

edited 26th Jan '11 10:02:47 AM by saladofstones

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

Being cultured isn't as important as having a job skill, which I suppose would fall under survival skills. Definitely more important. Not to mention the amount of time you can save. I learned more about writing in one year of college english attending once a week than four years of high school because they cut the literature section in its entirety. And the vocabulary section. And parts of the grammatical analysis. Even though the instructor was simply a TA and was in the "nobody gives a fuck, they just want their credit" class.

Fight smart, not fair.

I always find it amusing when people say the arts are worthless. I learned more critical skills in band and theater than pretty much everything other than math and physics, and I learned more about writing coherently in literature and theater than in my entire high school English program.

^ Job skills don't mean jack if you don't know how to relate to people.

edited 26th Jan '11 11:21:59 AM by Pykrete

@deboss: You go to vocational to learn job-skills.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

@ Pykrete I learned more from extracurriculars than from any class, but only in terms of object lessons of interpersonal interaction and coordinating effort.

As far as actual class material goes, the arts are pretty worthless.

It's arrogant to say that certain types of classes are useless. Even if you don't get anything out of a particular class, the next person may find a career or a lifelong hobby. Finger painting may not be as important as science, but Michelangelo had to start somewhere. English is important because it teaches you how to communicate well and how to analyze any text, not just Milton or Fitzgerald.

Survival skills are important if you expect to get stranded in the mountains or on a deserted island. It's possible, but it's not very likely. In other words, a small proportion of students will need those skills in later life. On the other hand, skills for financial literacy would help almost everyone.

To contribute to the actual topic, it has been argued that college loans are a form of indentured servitude. Not to the college, to the bank. Suppose your parents have pushed you all your life to go to college. You get loans, you graduate (or worse, flunk out), and you're ready to make your first million. Only you can't find a job in your field because someone in China or India has the job you were preparing for. You're in debt for the foreseeable future, you get a string of overlapping temporary jobs, you start getting calls about your loan payments, it may be five or ten years (if ever) before we get back to full employment. What can you do?

I suppose you could go live on a deserted island ....

Under World. It rocks!

Vocational schooling should be integrated into high school. The entirety of the english course work in high school is a complete waste of four years that could be spent on something valuable.

Hence my desire to remove the english program from high school and replace it with the equivalent to the basic course in college. And promoting the maths and science more. Both band and theater are electives, which by definition are things you sign up for by choice.

Ergo, replacing one class with any other is perfectly valid, since even if you liked the class, someone else may find a career or lifelong hobby.

Fight smart, not fair.

@Ralph Crown: I'm not arrogant, I'm just better than everyone else.

In seriousness, though, yes, English serves a purpose (if I was unclear on that, I apologize) but from a purely practical standpoint the arts (like literature studies, painting, music, et cetera) really are pretty worthless. A hobby is nice and all, but it isn't a necessity.

Also, if you aren't willing to pay back student loans, don't get them. If you can't go to college then, well, that's the choice you've made.

Skyrocketing college fees and living expenses while wages stagnate and job openings shrink is not really any one person's personal fiscal responsibility. Presenting it as such is merely giving a free pass to corruption in college administration and the economy in general.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

English is a tremendously key job skill. Setting aside all the critical thinking skills it teaches you, most people can't write.

And in the vast majority of jobs, being able to write in a clear and coherent way is essential.

Hell if you need a concrete example, the minute taker contract for my local council is fifty pounds an hour.

All of which ignores the fact that school isn't simply there to teach you job skills. It's to improve you as a person, which english is a hell of a lot better at then say electronics, or any of the 'practical' subjects.

edited 27th Jan '11 1:46:32 AM by Sandor

"When you cut your finger, I do not bleed." Response of a man who lived on the outskirts of a concentration camp.

"I disagree. All the cultured behaviors in the world won't save you if you survive a plane crash in the mountains. Survival skills will."

Except that isn't a meanigful risk in the modern world. The number of people who risk being stranded in a survival situation without going into it knowing it's a risk is almost nil.

Thse cultured behaviours though? Pretty damn useful on a frequent basis in the west, it turns out.

"When you cut your finger, I do not bleed." Response of a man who lived on the outskirts of a concentration camp.

Now, if english taught how to write better rather than throwing stacks of literature at you, people might improve their skill.

Practical subjects, by definition, improve your critical thinking. Otherwise it's just a "data acquisition class" and there's no point in having it on it's own.

And I'd say that schools that focus on "improving you as a person" can go fuck themselves and find other sources of students. Job skills should be first and foremost the things you learn at a school. If you can replace school with a trip to the library, I don't see the point of paying the teachers.

Fight smart, not fair.

You need a good grasp of literature, and a wide breadth of reading, to be able to write well.

Technical skill, and good writing, whilst having some crossover, aren't the same thing.

And no, if school was there primarily for job skills, it'd be called an apprenticeship. Improving job skills is one of its least concerns. Rather it's there to build well rounded individuals with a wide range of knowledge, the skills they need to be an moral person, and enough experience with the range of human understanding to help them decide what they want to carry on.

And technical subjects build straight analytic skills (and even then, they're not great at doing so - most of these are learnt by rote, especially at highschool). This kind of critical thinking is differet to that gained through english, or philosopthy.

Setting aside the other benefits gained. Such as improved people skills, ability to empathise with others (interesting that it's generally only the most right wing who would ever even consider challenging the importance of one of the three educational pillars), and carryon a sustained argument.

edited 27th Jan '11 3:18:29 AM by Sandor

"When you cut your finger, I do not bleed." Response of a man who lived on the outskirts of a concentration camp.

Technical skill is the only thing that matters about writing. Ability to write fiction is, by definition, secondary to other aspects.

Argument and people skills are important, empathy is not. And they can be advanced just as well with a debate course, rather than throwing away time and money on an english course.

An apprenticeship is a specific subset of schooling. Crushing the more worthless classes from the education system is a goal not a side effect.

Fight smart, not fair.

@Deboss: Empathy is the root of people skills.

If people skills are important, empathy must be at least as important.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1