So you think you're educated do you?

[Ocean11 0]

The 15 years or so that you spent in education were an almost complete waste of time. Sorry.

 

Nearly everything that you 'learnt', you have forgotten. Much of what you learnt was wrong anyway, and chances are that you remember some of the wrong stuff.

 

You were 'taught' a whole range of stuff that has no relevance to your life then or now, and you were taught it in a complete vacuum. In spite of this, you were expected to show an interest in it, and were judged by how much interest you had in it. Much of the course of your life has been set by your interest in these 'subjects'.

 

What you were NOT taught, and probably failed to learn, was the useful stuff;

 

• How to study and learn - techniques for planning a course of study and completing it yourself.
• Research - what resources are available and the techniques for mining them.
• Logic - what it is, its uses and limitations.
• Rhetoric - how to make an argument and how to recognize when somebody is using rhetoric to mask something bad.
• Ethics - how to know when something is bad.
• Practical mathematics - how to do the calculations that you are likely to encounter in a normal life.
• Scientific method - what it is, its uses and limitations.
• Civics - systems of government, their merits and demerits
• About your country - its geography, society, history etc.
• Health and fitness - how to stretch, how to eat properly, basic psychology, how children are made.

 

You will have gone through the whole miserable 15 year mill, struggling and in doubt because you were building a dirty great edifice on an immature, intellectually illiterate foundation. And this foundation often doesn't get any wider with time, while the edifice above it totters and crumbles, more or less quickly.

 

And the really shocking thing is, nobody seems to think anything fundamental needs to be done about this. Doesn't this piss you off just a little bit?

 

Anybody is free to disagree with this assessment - but doing so will simply prove that 'education' has a strong influence impelling you to make naive judgements throughout your adult life. (A tolerably good cigar is offered as a prize to anybody who can correctly name this last rhetorical device.)

[damian 0]

Ocean ( ), is this the 4.30pm Limbo Distraction thread? Where is the header saying 4.30LDT??

 

We really need some formality in this concept. I am starting to think Mikazooki was correct.

[damian 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:
Anybody is free to disagree with this assessment - but doing so will simply prove that 'education' has a strong influence impelling you to make naive judgements throughout your adult life. (A tolerably good cigar is offered as a prize to anybody who can correctly name this last rhetorical device.)

ooooh, me, me!! Is it the Ocean11 Rhetoric Device??

[Ocean11 0]

Don't shout in class! Put your hand up (without straining!), and sit quietly until you're invited to answer.

 

You got it wrong anyway.

[daft-as-a-brush 0]

I'm not very well educated but I do disagree.

[Siren 0]

Ocean, with great respect, I think you are on slippery slope here. With a few exception, I think most of the things you mentioned are taught - it is just not obvious as such.

 

I agree that some curriculum (e.g. history and civil responsibility) are heavily influenced by a country education policy.

 

Research and problem solving are the core thinking behind most post-graduate studies.

[miteyak 0]

Education is a baby sitting service. Someone has to occupy the children./ It also conditions them to accept their role in a nine-five work environment.

 

Some of the points Ocean raised are valid, others I learned myself at school, so would argue they were things some learned, others didn't.

 

. I'd have to say, however, given my own father's experience, teachers who seek to present relevent, practical courses at schools (he ran a profiable farming unit, fully computerized, and fully integrated into the curriculum), are marginalized and eventually closed down. Schools are looking for the most cost effective way to present a limited product to an average consumer using average, inexperienced 'informants', with little to no experience of the world outside 'education (the institution).

 

db-Ocean obeyed the rules to the letter, the thread was there, on time, and it appears to be controversial.

[miteyak 0]

Did I mention the fact, that, while being politically rather illiterate, many lazy arse teachers insist on spouting left wing crap just because they think they should get more and more money, and work less and less.

 

How much compensation do you expect to get for working 6 hours a day(w/ breaks), five days aweek, for less than 40 weeks a year...

 

sheeeesh

[damian 0]

Yes, I too tire of the left wing sprouting of many teachers. Buuuut, if they did a very good job (open to be defined) I think they deserve more money than they get. Society's best should be encouraged by reward to enter teaching. At the moment, few see the point in being a teacher for the pay they get (same goes for nurses and police officers).

 

I was taught by people who where born to be average and adopted that line in life by becoming who-cares teachers. They then pretended they cared but in fact tried to pass on their 'never aim to high, just be happy with a job' attitude.

 

My spelling teacher was particularly bad.

[Ocean11 0]

Siren, I'm going to respond to every point in your post, because it goes to the heart of what I'm saying. I hope you won't feel picked on.

 

> I think most of the things you mentioned are taught - it is just not obvious as such.

 

What's the point if it's not obvious? The basics that I mentioned enable a person to approach any other 'subject' intelligently, from scratch. Together they make a formidable tool set. If you can't throw a problem at a pupil and ask them to describe explicitly how they're going to solve it, and get a sensible answer, then what of any use does the pupil actually know? I don't believe they're taught, and I don't believe the teachers are qualified to teach them.

 

> I agree that some curriculum (e.g. history and civil responsibility) are heavily influenced by a country education policy.

 

You occasionally get absurd attempts such as the 'patriotism qualification' proposed in Japan, and you have some boring history lessons, but there's no attempt to present a curriculum that leaves you reasonably confident about 'what your country is about'. I think it's a crucial failure of education that most people know precious little about their own countries, good and bad.

 

> Research and problem solving are the core thinking behind most post-graduate studies.

 

Most people don't get nearly that far. They've already been blighted long before they get to that stage.

 

miteyak, can I do you dad's course? It sounds good.

[miteyak 0]

Ocean11, no, they canned him...the unit is closed.

[miteyak 0]

In the light of no resounding arguments in defense of current educational systems, I move to declare the disparagers of said system the winners of todays distraction...

[Siren 0]

Ocean, no worries – I know you weren’t picking on me.

 

This is not my strongest subject, nor am I an ‘education professional’, but bear with me.

 

1) I think we can all agree that education should at least equip us with the ability to analyse and solve a problem. What I disagree was that this ability can be taught in the absent of other knowledge – what we have been learning since kindergarten. The tip of the pyramid cannot exist without the building block of the foundation.

The notions of research and problem solving are simple but the underlying concepts (e.g. quantitative vs qualitative, systemic thinking, force field analysis, to name a few) could be complex. Assuming you are the designer of the education system, you will need to decide when the students are ready and able to learn these complex concepts. Not many people would dispute that to be ready, the students need to study the fundamental stuff like maths, geography, language etc. It may not, e.g., be immediately obvious to the students why it is necessary to learn how to find out the product of a number multiplied by another.

2) No one can be reasonably confident about ‘What my country is all about’. It is the same as asking “Who are we and what is the reason of our existence”. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself the simple questions: “What is England all about?” or “What defines England?” The Queen? Lords? The country cottages? Does it still resemble the Great Empire in any way today? Replace “England” with any country.

 

To add to the problem, some states actually need to decide if they want to increase the number of certain students (e.g. engineers) depending on their competitive strategy in the global market place. Therefore it is not what the students want but what is desirable in the view of the state.

 

3) I agree that some of the things taught in MBA should be migrated to undergraduate

[damian 0]

Agreed on the result.

 

Today's was a good distraction, but a little slow in the end.

 

Good work Ocean.

[Stefan 0]

I've only got a sec to stir this almighty pot. But you've missed a big sticking point. The education your reffering is of formal sort!?

 

What about informal education. We've already been informed on MANY different areas of life before we even go to school via family and the media..... I agree with db, my spelling teacher was crap, so crap she didn't exist!

 

Plus what about what we lear after leaving 'formal' educational institutions?

[bobby12 0]

I want that cigar...

 

I think it was Karl Popper who said that in order for a theory to have value it must be refutable. This is what makes a theory scientific, and distinguishes the sciences from the likes of astrology.

 

Anyway, your point in the first post was non-refutable, so it has no value.

 

I didnt name the rhetorical device but I want my cigar ;-)

[Ocean11 0]

Thank you db, that's very gracious.

 

After I've had a bath, I'll post the answer. If nobody comes up with anything in the meantime, I shall be forced to smoke the stogie myself.

[Ocean11 0]

And the answer I was looking for, right or wrong, is 'poisoning the well' - a manoeuvre in which you seek to discredit your opponent and their arguments before they even use them - as one who destroys the resources needed by others by poisoning the water.

 

I look forward to tomorrow's distraction...

[damian 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by bobby12:

I think it was Karl Popper who said that in order for a theory to have value it must be refutable. This is what makes a theory scientific, and distinguishes the sciences from the likes of astrology.

Indeed it was Karl Popper that said this. Do you read much of his philosophy work?

It is fantastic stuff. However I do need to concentrate a lot when I read it.

The books in the "Open Society and it's Enemies" series are great.

[snobee 0]

The rhetorical device used is "poisoning the well" - a manoeuvre in which you seek to discredit your opponent and their arguments before they even use them.

O-11, I claim the prize as the "anybody who can correctly name this last rhetorical advice."

However as a non-partaker in heavily rolled leaf - although I've been known to indulge the occasional cabbage roll - I'll accept a direct monetary contribution as a consulation.

[mikazooki 0]

the device used is Procatalepsis, which acts by anticipating an objection and answering it. its usage is intended to move an argument on to new points, but most certainly can be used to the effect of weakening an opponent should they try to incorporate the mentioned point.

 

do i get a cigarette for a late answer??

[Ocean11 0]

Procatalepsis?

 

Actually, that's slightly different.

 

Poisoning the well contains an element of ad-hominem - "And you'd have to be a bigot to believe a thing like that".

 

However;

PROCATALEPSIS (Greek "anticipation"): procatalepsis is a rhetorical strategy in which the writer raises an objection and then immediately answers it; by doing so, the rhetor seeks to strengthen his argument by dealing with possible objections before his audience can raise counter-arguments.

- which is a legitimate and ethical strategy. How about a cigarette butt for that? I think my wife has several.

 

Siren, I've been thinking more about your points. I had to learn about and remember specifically the behaviour of magnesium when burnt (I also stole a good length of it to burn in uncontrolled experiments). While mildly interesting in itself, the information has proved useless - and there was a great deal more of the same too.

 

I also had to remember the details of the Great Reform Act of 18-something-or-other. Instead of that, I think my time would have been better spent preparing to answer exam questions like;

• Why are there so many coloured people in Britain?
• What was the Magna Carta for, and what is its legacy?
• What the youth of Britain needs is conscription! Discuss.
• Bollocks to the Queen, let's have a friggin republic. Discuss.

I think studying towards this sort of thing would enable you better to understand your country. Nothing definitive of course, but a lot more than I learned.

 

If as part this, research, rhetoric, civics etc. were taught explicitly, you would surely end up with a more thoughtful populace, who knew more, and were more productive. Although I haven't stressed the productiveness aspect at all, I think the current atomized education produces a lot of people who are good for nothing. Hence we had dreary Mr Smith the 'careers teacher', who explained all the 'government schemes designed to kill your dreams'.

[badmigraine 0]

Ocean--sorry, I thought the rhetorical device to which you were referring was the offering of the cigar.

 

[mikazooki 0]

consarnit.

 

but nice dinosaur.

 

my take on greek led me to images of anal spasm, but i cant find a picture...

[barok 0]

but I think yout rhetorical whatever goes one step beyond poisoning the well.

 

Embedded in your statement is not only a statement that attempts to discredit your opponent and their arguments before they use them, but moreover that suggests that even bringing up an argument would discredit any counter of your argument at all.

 

Akin to posting something like

 

"Killing fairies is a great thing, but before you disagree with me, realize that for every message in support of not killing fairies, a fairie dies. So if you post against my opinion, you prove my point."