America remains a scientifically ignorant nation for two reasons: the resurgence of fundamentalist religion during the past 40 years, and secondly, the low level of science education in American elementary and secondary schools, as well as many tertiary colleges.
While television ratings for Cosmos may have stunned media critics and your average fundamentalist, “Americans continue to poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution, scriptural inerrancy, the presence of angels and demons, and so forth."
http://www.alternet.org/education/results-are-america-dumb-and-road-getting-dumber
America remains a scientifically ignorant nation for two reasons: the resurgence of fundamentalist religion during the past 40 years, and secondly, the low level of science education in American elementary and secondary schools, as well as many tertiary colleges. While television ratings for Cosmos may have stunned media critics and your average fundamentalist, “Americans continue to poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution, scriptural inerrancy, the presence of angels and demons, and so forth." http://www.alternet.org/education/results-are-america-dumb-and-road-getting-dumberBelow is an explanation why by a knowledgeable PhD http://www.hulu.com/watch/701699#i1,p0,d1
Below is an explanation why by a knowledgeable PhD http://www.hulu.com/watch/701699#i1,p0,d1An English major? He sounds like a conspiracy theorist.
America remains a scientifically ignorant nation for two reasons: the resurgence of fundamentalist religion during the past 40 years, and secondly, the low level of science education in American elementary and secondary schools, as well as many tertiary colleges.Yes, it is really phenomenal with cheap computers and the Internet everywhere. The technology does not determine the quality of information. But we are bombarded with so many random tidbits of data without coherent pictures. That is the nice thing about good SF stories. Each story presents an entire pattern. But junk with sonic screwdrivers is useless. But our educational system is really an education business. Dribble out info so kids spend lots of time in school. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0wk4qG2mIg Now that is Educated! psik
America remains a scientifically ignorant nation for two reasons: the resurgence of fundamentalist religion during the past 40 years, and secondly, the low level of science education in American elementary and secondary schools, as well as many tertiary colleges. While television ratings for Cosmos may have stunned media critics and your average fundamentalist, “Americans continue to poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution, scriptural inerrancy, the presence of angels and demons, and so forth." http://www.alternet.org/education/results-are-america-dumb-and-road-getting-dumberI think the problem is that children are taught to accept the things that are told to them as facts. Whether it's in school (2+2=4, George Washington was the 1st president of the US, etc.) or in church (God created the Earth in 6 days, Jesus died on a cross for your sins, etc.), we have been conditioned to accept information as fact by default. Does anyone remember being taught HOW to think in school? I sure don't. It wasn't until years after I was out of school that I started to question some long held beliefs. Not religious ones since I was raised in a secular family, but things like evolution and the origin of the universe. Even ridiculously simple things. I broke my foot when I was like 9 years old and had a cast. When it was time to get it removed, the doctor (or nurse or tech, it was all the same to me at 9) brought out a saw and when I heard the noise of it and saw the blade, I was obviously not excited about it being put right next to my skin. The doctor told me, "Don't worry, this saw can only cut casts, not skin". I immediately relaxed and let him do his thing. It's not surprising that 9 year old me would believe this but the strange part is how LONG I believed this. I was probably in my late 20's or early 30's when I started to tell someone that saws used for removing casts can't cut skin when it hit me: THAT DOCTOR WAS FULL OF SHIT! :) It's a funny story that I like to tell people but at the heart of it is what I see as the root cause of the question: we're taught facts, not how to think. When I was in school, there were 4 "core" class types that were taught every semester: Social Studies (History), English, Math, and Science. What if there had been a fifth one called Critical Thinking? It could teach things like logic, debate, and troubleshooting. If I had had that type of education, then 9 year old me might have told the doctor "That doesn't make sense, if the saw cuts through plaster which is harder than skin, then why doesn't it cut through skin?". Maybe he would have told me that he was just kidding and reassured me by telling me that he's cut off hundreds of casts without cutting anyone. Maybe it wouldn't have worked as well as the lie, but it might have been effective enough. Maybe teaching Critical Thinking would be difficult to do since it's much harder to assess. You couldn't ask questions with solid answers like "What year did so-and-so do such-and-such" or "X=3Y/2, solve for Y". Maybe that's part of the problem? Maybe there's pressure from religious groups to not teach it since holy books are only useful if you don't start questioning them: Where did Cain and Abel find wives? If Noah's flood cover the Earth in salt water for a year why were the land plants still alive when it receded? These are the questions they DON'T want asked in Sunday school.
Below is an explanation why by a knowledgeable PhD http://www.hulu.com/watch/701699#i1,p0,d1An English major? He sounds like a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy to do what? To me it sounded more like an indictment of complacency. The point was that he was that he attended a supposedly world class University and knew the environment intimately and came to his conclusion that few were taught to think "outside the box" but accepting what is taught "by rote". IMO, that would qualify him to comment on the system. Unless you have read his book, your judgement sounds a little premature. I think we can all agree that our educational system is way down on the scale compared to other developed countries. His book was an indictment of systemic failure to produce great leadership qualities.
IMO, that would qualify him to comment on the system. Unless you have read his book, your judgement sounds a little premature. I think we can all agree that our educational system is way down on the scale compared to other developed countries. His book was an indictment of systemic failure to produce great leadership qualities.At best it was personal opinion. I didn't hear anything about a study or any data at all. Sounds like a guy who wasn't happy because they gave him too much homework. I didn't hear any ideas about how one goes about teaching "out of the box" thinking. In my opinion, learning Calculus teaches you problem solving, but I doubt that guy would agree with me.
IMO, that would qualify him to comment on the system. Unless you have read his book, your judgement sounds a little premature. I think we can all agree that our educational system is way down on the scale compared to other developed countries. His book was an indictment of systemic failure to produce great leadership qualities.At best it was personal opinion. I didn't hear anything about a study or any data at all. Sounds like a guy who wasn't happy because they gave him too much homework. I didn't hear any ideas about how one goes about teaching "out of the box" thinking. In my opinion, learning Calculus teaches you problem solving, but I doubt that guy would agree with me. I believe he touched on this, explaining that most students who excelled in Calculus ended up in the stock market to become rich, rather than contibute their analytic powers to solving the worlds economic problems. His critique was that the prominent universities neglected to teach emphasis on public leadership qualities, instead of using their expertise for personal gain. The stock market seems to reflect the brilliance of Economists, whereas the government is full of incompetent administrators at every level. Government is full of politicians, not administrators. I believe we can agree that the general level of competence in government leadership is less than adequate. Cutting education budgets or raising tuitions is not the way out of incompetency. I believe it is a problem that can be solved only by calculus. Where are the economic models from concerned "learned leadership"?
America remains a scientifically ignorant nation for two reasons: the resurgence of fundamentalist religion during the past 40 years, and secondly, the low level of science education in American elementary and secondary schools, as well as many tertiary colleges. While television ratings for Cosmos may have stunned media critics and your average fundamentalist, “Americans continue to poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution, scriptural inerrancy, the presence of angels and demons, and so forth." http://www.alternet.org/education/results-are-america-dumb-and-road-getting-dumberI think the problem is that children are taught to accept the things that are told to them as facts. Whether it's in school (2+2=4, George Washington was the 1st president of the US, etc.) or in church (God created the Earth in 6 days, Jesus died on a cross for your sins, etc.), we have been conditioned to accept information as fact by default. Does anyone remember being taught HOW to think in school? I sure don't. It wasn't until years after I was out of school that I started to question some long held beliefs. Not religious ones since I was raised in a secular family, but things like evolution and the origin of the universe. Even ridiculously simple things. I broke my foot when I was like 9 years old and had a cast. When it was time to get it removed, the doctor (or nurse or tech, it was all the same to me at 9) brought out a saw and when I heard the noise of it and saw the blade, I was obviously not excited about it being put right next to my skin. The doctor told me, "Don't worry, this saw can only cut casts, not skin". I immediately relaxed and let him do his thing. It's not surprising that 9 year old me would believe this but the strange part is how LONG I believed this. I was probably in my late 20's or early 30's when I started to tell someone that saws used for removing casts can't cut skin when it hit me: THAT DOCTOR WAS FULL OF SHIT! :) It's a funny story that I like to tell people but at the heart of it is what I see as the root cause of the question: we're taught facts, not how to think. When I was in school, there were 4 "core" class types that were taught every semester: Social Studies (History), English, Math, and Science. What if there had been a fifth one called Critical Thinking? It could teach things like logic, debate, and troubleshooting. If I had had that type of education, then 9 year old me might have told the doctor "That doesn't make sense, if the saw cuts through plaster which is harder than skin, then why doesn't it cut through skin?". Maybe he would have told me that he was just kidding and reassured me by telling me that he's cut off hundreds of casts without cutting anyone. Maybe it wouldn't have worked as well as the lie, but it might have been effective enough. Maybe teaching Critical Thinking would be difficult to do since it's much harder to assess. You couldn't ask questions with solid answers like "What year did so-and-so do such-and-such" or "X=3Y/2, solve for Y". Maybe that's part of the problem? Maybe there's pressure from religious groups to not teach it since holy books are only useful if you don't start questioning them: Where did Cain and Abel find wives? If Noah's flood cover the Earth in salt water for a year why were the land plants still alive when it receded? These are the questions they DON'T want asked in Sunday school. As far as your experience with a cast saw goes, the doctor was as not as off the mark as you might think. "From an ER Nurse: A cast cutter works by way of vibration. The "blade" vibrates instead of spins. When it is pushed hard against a hard surface the resistance of the hard surface causes the blade to cut the surface (the cast). If the blade hits soft tissue the "give" of that soft tissue does not allow for enough resistance to have the blades cut. I am an ER nurse and have cut off hundreds of casts. I have never seen a cast cutter cut anyone. I usually hold the vibrating blade against my hand, and have the patient do the same if they wish, just to reassure the patient that they will not be cut. The vibrating blade stops when it hits the skin. A cast cutter/saw works on a very different principle than a regular saw, so don't be worried." http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zqsvf/eli5_when_getting_a_cast_cut_off_how_does_the_saw/ There are some conditions where a person's skin could be injured by a cast saw, usually poor handling by the technician or a faulty saw, but it would be rare. Casts are removed with cast saws thousands of times a day with no injuries. Lois
I believe he touched on this, explaining that most students who excelled in Calculus ended up in the stock market to become rich, rather than contibute their analytic powers to solving the worlds economic problems. His critique was that the prominent universities neglected to teach emphasis on public leadership qualities, instead of using their expertise for personal gain. The stock market seems to reflect the brilliance of Economists, whereas the government is full of incompetent administrators at every level. Government is full of politicians, not administrators.I don't need a study for that. The number of people "in the stock market" who became rich as a percentage of those who took Calculus could not POSSIBLY come out to anything reaching "most". That's exactly the kind of hyperbole I'm accusing this guy of.
I believe we can agree that the general level of competence in government leadership is less than adequate. Cutting education budgets or raising tuitions is not the way out of incompetency. I believe it is a problem that can be solved only by calculus. Where are the economic models from concerned "learned leadership"?Now you're just challenging me to present some solutions. I don't have to do that to prove this guy doesn't have anything of value.
I believe he touched on this, explaining that most students who excelled in Calculus ended up in the stock market to become rich, rather than contibute their analytic powers to solving the worlds economic problems. His critique was that the prominent universities neglected to teach emphasis on public leadership qualities, instead of using their expertise for personal gain. The stock market seems to reflect the brilliance of Economists, whereas the government is full of incompetent administrators at every level. Government is full of politicians, not administrators.I don't need a study for that. The number of people "in the stock market" who became rich as a percentage of those who took Calculus could not POSSIBLY come out to anything reaching "most". That's exactly the kind of hyperbole I'm accusing this guy of.
I believe we can agree that the general level of competence in government leadership is less than adequate. Cutting education budgets or raising tuitions is not the way out of incompetency. I believe it is a problem that can be solved only by calculus. Where are the economic models from concerned "learned leadership"?Now you're just challenging me to present some solutions. I don't have to do that to prove this guy doesn't have anything of value. I don't know your qualifications, but unless you have attended an Ivy League school and its exclusive social environment, how can you comment on the conclusions by someone who has? OTOH, if you are kowledgeable in calculus and practice this knowledge in the field of economics, you just proved his point. Allow me a question: How is it possible that politicians saw fit to bail out the financial market to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars without any strings attached and no one was held to "account"? I predicted long ago that once the accountants got their hands on this bail-out, the money would disappear without being used for its intended purpose, except to prevent a total collapse of the world's economy. Too big to fail is a poor excuse for collecting tax payer funded bonuses to management responsible for causing this financial collapse in the first place. Amazing how financial institutions managed to turn bankruptcy into a profit at tax payer expense and stashed it in non-taxable off-shore accounts. Champagne all around! Where was the sense of social responsibility? Corporations (enjoying the same rights as "persons") don't give a damn about the social responsibilities that come with those rights. A corporation has only a responsibility to maximize profit for its stockholders, most who are already rich. I will grant that there are a few exceptions to these "impersonal" and callous practices, but remember the 23.9 % interest (profit) on loans made with "tax free" bail out money acquired through taxation of the very people who were forced to borrow due to the financial collapse? My model would have been to bail out the people who suffered most from the financial mismanagement of financial institutions. IMO, that would have also stabilized the economy, as poor people immediately would have returned this money back into the general economy, paying off debts, purchasing goods, such as that new washing machine or refrigerator and services such as medical expenses. p.s. I am a retired accountant for a large non-profit social services company, which provided assistance to the poorest. We were required to account for every dollar we distributed. When we went under due to State and Federal budget cuts and well meant but poor fiscal management who over-extended our expense account, no one bailed us out regardless of the hardships and suffering caused to people who needed the most assistance and which this non-profit company served. Apparently we were small enough to fail, and thereby disenfranchise hundreds of poorest "persons". IMO, it is entirely reasonable to make "social economic science" a required second major to any curriculum that teaches financial calculus. I recently saw an interiew of a manager of a large company, which received a large tax cut for purposes of spurring the hiring of additional labor. When asked what he was doing with his tax cut, this person answered that he put that money in the bank. When asked why he did not hire additional people, his response was, "why would I hire people I don't need?", an entirely honest and appropriate response and just another example of wasted tax dollars. A free, unrestricted or incompetently regulated market will inevitably be abused by "creative financing" of large financial corporations. Witness the "Halliburton Lloophole" which exempted "fracking companies" from EPA standards, such as "clean drinking water", because the additional paperwork would have been too expensive and would have cut into the profit margins of those companies. I believe the results are now becoming worrysome to some states where the landscapes are being fracked. OTOH in some states, if landowners complain about the harmful effects of fracking to their lifestock or drinking water their land is "taken" via "eminent domain" and made available to the very companies who caused the problems. Sound political economic leadership? Another flawed model is COLA which is designed to offset an fixed dollar amount increase in cost of living, which is "calculated" as a percent increase of income. This model inherently favors the people with high incomes (management) and is in effect an increase in "Cost of Lifestyle". Example: The actual cost of living increase by a "fixed dollar amount" which calculates out to say, an "average" 2% increase in the "cost of living", a person making $10.000.00 p/yr would receive an COLA increase of $200.00, which may be less than the actual increase in the cost of living in dollars, whereas a person making $100,000.00 p/yr would receive $2000.00 increase, which may well far exceed the actual increase in dollars. This is tantamount to an adjustment in cost of lifestyle, not cost of living. Do the math.
I don't know your qualifications, but unless you have attended an Ivy League school and its exclusive social environment, how can you comment on the conclusions by someone who has?I guess we can't discuss much of anything then. Certainly no one could say anything about dinosaurs or Neanderthals. I guess we're done here.
I don't know your qualifications, but unless you have attended an Ivy League school and its exclusive social environment, how can you comment on the conclusions by someone who has?I guess we can't discuss much of anything then. Certainly no one could say anything about dinosaurs or Neanderthals. I guess we're done here. Edit:
His critique was that the prominent universities neglected to teach emphasis on public leadership qualities, instead of using their expertise for personal gain.If he had a real critique, why didn't mention these classes? If these classes are failing to do the job, why?]
America remains a scientifically ignorant nation for two reasons: the resurgence of fundamentalist religion during the past 40 years, and secondly, the low level of science education in American elementary and secondary schools, as well as many tertiary colleges. While television ratings for Cosmos may have stunned media critics and your average fundamentalist, “Americans continue to poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution, scriptural inerrancy, the presence of angels and demons, and so forth." http://www.alternet.org/education/results-are-america-dumb-and-road-getting-dumberThis is an old story, though. It may not be a question of becoming increasingly ignorant; we may simply be just as ignorant as we've always been. H.L. Mencken's articles regarding the Scopes Trial seem as pertinent regarding education and the law in Tennessee and elsewhere in the U.S. as they were 90 years ago. There seems to be a strain of religious fundamentalism here that is inherent, and an ignorance which is invincible. Education doesn't seem to matter.
I notice that when a political issue comes up that people reject, all of a sudden they start talking about “Leadership.” it has apparently become a fashionable buzz word, especially to those who don’t like the leadership being displayed. It isn’t leadership that’s the problem, but anything but their own brand of leadership that they denigrate. Republicans, especially, seem to like “leadership” that will send the country over a cliff. Anything less is a failure in “leadership.”
LL
I don't know your qualifications, but unless you have attended an Ivy League school and its exclusive social environment, how can you comment on the conclusions by someone who has?I guess we can't discuss much of anything then. Certainly no one could say anything about dinosaurs or Neanderthals. I guess we're done here. Edit:
His critique was that the prominent universities neglected to teach emphasis on public leadership qualities, instead of using their expertise for personal gain.If he had a real critique, why didn't mention these classes? If these classes are failing to do the job, why?] I am happy you haven't given up on me yet. Perhaps the following quote from William Deresiewicz article in the The Scientific American may shed light on his worldview;
Fourteen years of higher education and a handful of Ivy League degrees,and
It’s not surprising that it took me so long to discover the extent of my miseducation, because the last thing an elite education will teach you is its own inadequacy. As two dozen years at Yale and Columbia have shown me, elite colleges relentlessly encourage their students to flatter themselves for being there, and for what being there can do for them. The advantages of an elite education are indeed undeniable. You learn to think, at least in certain ways, and you make the contacts needed to launch yourself into a life rich in all of society’s most cherished rewards. To consider that while some opportunities are being created, others are being cancelled and that while some abilities are being developed, others are being crippled is, within this context, not only outrageous, but inconceivable.The full article may be found here:http://theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-education/#.VEWzRnYtDhc
I notice that when a political issue comes up that people reject, all of a sudden they start talking about "Leadership." it has apparently become a fashionable buzz word, especially to those who don't like the leadership being displayed. It isn't leadership that's the problem, but anything but their own brand of leadership that they denigrate. Republicans, especially, seem to like "leadership" that will send the country over a cliff. Anything less is a failure in "leadership." LLIMO, he used the term "leadership" in context of being able to relate to and communicate with average (less educated) individuals. I clearly remember two examples of such social disconnect by Ivy League scholars. George W Bush's (Yale, Harvard) comment at a fundraising dinner; "some call you the rich, some call you the super rich, I call you my base". and Mitt Romney's (Harvard) comment at a fund raising dinner on the 47% of US citizens who don't count. Both comments were not intended for publication, but luckily they were and gave insight into the prevailing elite viewpoint of inherent superiority. IMO, these are the very attitudes fostered by their elite educational environment which William Deresiewicz was addressing.
Write4U wrote
IMO, he used the term “leadership” in context of being able to relate to and communicate with average (less educated) individuals
Who is “he” in that sentence?
Lois
Write4U wrote IMO, he used the term "leadership" in context of being able to relate to and communicate with average (less educated) individuals Who is "he" in that sentence? LoisWilliam Deresiewicz . I mention his name near the end of that post. If you recall, he was the subject of my discussion with Lausten.
Write4U wrote IMO, he used the term "leadership" in context of being able to relate to and communicate with average (less educated) individuals Who is "he" in that sentence? LoisWilliam Deresiewicz . I mention his name near the end of that post. If you recall, he was the subject of my discussion with Lausten. Ok, when I wrote about "leadership" being a buzz word I hadn't yet read the Deresiewicz article. i was responding your use of the word in your sentence: "His book was an indictment of systemic failure to produce great leadership qualities." My post was not a good response to your point. It's just that the word "leadership" is bandied about so much that I overreacted to the word itself. I wasn't focusing your actual point. I did read the article, which is very good, and I think he may be right. I did not attend an elite school or university, so I can analyze it only as an outsider. My own mediocre education did not teach much in the way of leadership skills at all. Lois