Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!mintaka!think!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!bralick From: bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: Education Message-ID: <1989Dec19.053905.11104@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> Date: 19 Dec 89 05:39:05 GMT References: <1989Dec18.042005.19231@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> <7478@hubcap.clemson.edu> Organization: Self Similar Lines: 109 In article <7478@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >From bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): >> How is an ignorant person supposed to have cultivated interests >> in "irrelevant" subjects without being exposed to those subjects? > > How about letting individuals determine their OWN interests?? Well, they already _do_ know themselves at least well enough to know what their interests are, don't they. In their limited experience they will be interested in some subset of what they have been exposed to. There is nothing prohibiting them from pursuing their own interests. >> I am almost willing to agree that they [students] at least shouldn't >> be "captive" audiences. That would be no problem if they would not >> have to be supported by the people who had the responsibility and >> self-discipline as young adults to learn the "irrelevant" material. > > Hey, this may come as a surprise, but 99% or more of the students > who resent being part of a captive audience would like nothing better > than an opportunity to participate in an efficient system by which > they could become self-supporting as quickly as possible. If you > offer these people the opportunity to ditch all the bullshit and > get onto the fast track to financial achievement, they'd gladly > load up on student loans and pay back ALL the costs, plus interest. The 99% statistic is probably not grounded in some recognized sampling method, but I will address your point and not quibble over the minor details. There is some confusion between `self-supporting' and the `fast-track to financial achievement.' `Self-supporting' doesn't seem to require the BIG BUCKS, and making the BIG money doesn't depend on a college education (or degree :-). If you just want to make money, then, with a high school diploma and sufficient drive and determination, one's future is made. > It absolutely astounds me that the educational system takes people > who are living in the depths of poverty in the filthiest of ghettoes > and insists that they study wars of previous centuries, Shakespeare, > etc.!!! So an elitist would contend that a poor person is not capable of appreciating history, or literature. That is only for the upper classes in the suburbs -- the leaders of tomorrow. Po' folk in the ghetto are only good for being trained to be laborers, eh? > What these people need is intensive economic training so they They should become economists? > can make better lives for themselves, Money, money, money. That is really _all_ you can think about. If the quality of one's life is measured in dollars and cents, then it really is rather worthless, isn't it? A better life could also consist of being able to appreciate better literature, oh, but I forgot, that's just for suburban folks, isn't it. > not enough bullshit to convince > them that they are completely wasting their time inside that classroom. Your narrowness of vision is only exceeded by your intransigence. >> | No, our educational system >> | is doing a FINE job of producing pregnant teenage dropouts who give >> | birth to heroin-addicted babies -- why should we change a thing??? >> >> Our educational system has its problems, but I think that the culture >> students _live in_ bears far more blame for the above than the school >> where they spend only 30 hours/week. > > Bullshit. The educational system turns them off to school, and > thereby sees to it that another generation remains in poverty. Ahh.. there is no `culture of poverty,' then. Poverty is inflicted on people by the educational system. Gee, and I thought there were poor people _before_ there was an educational system, too. > Education is the mechanism for financial upward mobility in our But you just said that it is the mechanism that keeps whole generations of people in actual poverty. I guess the law of the excluded middle is just more irrelevant coursework. > society, but many users find this to be a ridiculous suggestion > given the extent to which effort is directed toward things which Gee, don't our wise students understand that the median income of college graduates is higher than the median income of non-college graduates? Even those college graduates who have to read actual _books_ in college that they (and you'll find this hard to believe) don't actually want to read! Isn't this _reality_ enough to convince even the most intransigent of our students that they should do something that they might not actually _like_ so that they might benefit in the long term? > have no practical significance to their lives or wallets whatsoever. There you go again. This is really pitiful. At least we see here an inkling that there _may_ be some meaningful distinction that can be drawn between one's life and one's income. Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli