This is topic Why Can't they Do Something Useful, or a Different Angle to the Gay Marriage Issue in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
I'm tired of arguing about the issue. It is a terrible idea to limit people's rights too much, but if these politicians care so much about families why can't they do something useful and help all these young couples out there struggling to start families? They have student loans to deal with, but they can't get jobs that are good enough. They have first children, but they cannot find quality day care so they can go back to work and support themselves and their children. Nor can they take time off to take care of sick kids without getting into trouble on a lot of jobs. Why can't these politicians do things like give a one year deferment in student loans to people who have just have children or give loans to people who have just gotten married so they can afford to buy houses and start their lives? It's weird and radical, but this sort of thing would help a lot of families more than harping on gay marriage as an attempt to distract people from other issues...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Syn, sweetie, it gets out the conservative christian vote. It's pure, cynical politics. That's why they repropose this thing every other year.
I don't think they even want it to pass because if it does they can't repropose it.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I know that the difficult times like you just mentioned have made my marriage stronger. I'm not so sure that the government pandering to newlywed's every want will improve marriage any more than proponents of SSM believe that banning SSM will positively impact marriage.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It would just get overturned a few years from now... It seems so unnessasary to make a marriage amendment when there are other problems that families face taht need addressing
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not to sound terribly callous, but do we really want more incentive for people in debt to generate more children?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't think it would get over turned for a long long time. FMA would be a serious set back if it passes. *unhappy sigh*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think it would get over turned for a long long time.
I agree. It's just too difficult for the constitution to be ammendmed for it to happen every few years.
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
And did you guys hear that they plan to propose an amendment against flag burning within the next year too? What the hell is congress doing? Anything at all?
Now I know it won't pass, but seriously, what's up with this crap? Didn't we get out of England to avoid having our freedom repressed? Is everybody crazy?
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
It's so obvious! I would agree with him because I agree with it on principle, but the way he's using it as a political maneuver is shameful. So now I don't agree with it purely without principle.
I'm beginning to hope "Someone" sets this bush on fire. His base couldn't possibly disagree with that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
They would likely blame it on all those Democrats going up and down in the world, and back and forth in it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I hear that the Republicans are also pushing for a "Country music (except the Dixie Chicks) is now the official music of the United States." ammendment. They were trying to put it on as a rider to the "Nascar Rocks!" bill, but they were worried about it being struck down by the classic rock-biased judiciary.
Posted by F.M. Swamp Fox (Member # 9480) on :
I heard that democrats were making a new "you can make any type of free speech statement you like, so long as it's not close minded in which case it's intolerant and should be viewed as racist, invalid and all together rude." But that must have been coming after the "Nascar Rocks!" bill, which of course followed the "kill the babies, save the whales" bill.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I fully support driving SUVs and clubbing baby seals. In fact, I think clubbing baby seals while driving SUVs should be the new national pastime.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Swampy, I'm stuck wondering whether that was an attempt at humor or not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
pH,
Clubbing baby seals has already been taken as a national pastime by Canada. We can't just go stealing other nation's national pastimes. We'd be like Japan playing baseball.
This will be over in a couple days probably, they can't stall the vote too far into the legislative calendar. Let it die, let's all move on and await this issue to pop up again in the presidential election. Depending on who is propped up on the right, I wouldn't be surprised to see McCain come out for a ban on gay marriage, but with support for civil unions. That'd REALLY throw everyone for a loop.
Squick -
I chuckled when I read his post. Looking at the post he's responding to, I think it was a well deserved reply, depending who's doing the replying.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: "Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. He told the Senate on Tuesday he does not support the amendment.
There's he's stated position. I dunno how he actually voted.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I'm tired of arguing about the issue. It is a terrible idea to limit people's rights too much, but if these politicians care so much about families why can't they do something useful and help all these young couples out there struggling to start families? They have student loans to deal with, but they can't get jobs that are good enough. They have first children, but they cannot find quality day care so they can go back to work and support themselves and their children. Nor can they take time off to take care of sick kids without getting into trouble on a lot of jobs. Why can't these politicians do things like give a one year deferment in student loans to people who have just have children or give loans to people who have just gotten married so they can afford to buy houses and start their lives? It's weird and radical, but this sort of thing would help a lot of families more than harping on gay marriage as an attempt to distract people from other issues...
We are managing and rather content to. Of course we don't have any kids, yet. Both in our mid-20's, she's a teacher, and I make the same salary she does. We saved for 4 years, and bought a house (above average prices for houses in Annapolis, MD).
I have no clue what your individual situation is, but a lot of our friends ask how we manage. I look at them and see huge plasma screen tvs, and 7 nights eating out at restaurants. Too many people out of college are trying to live above their means. I think the problem is pretty much with the expectations kids are having coming out of college, that and the fact that some are going to college without needing to. A good friend of mine went the blue collar construction route right after high school, and is making twice what I make.
Also, I don't think I can ever understand why someone would go to college for 4 years, and decide to have a child right away without being financially stable enough.
[ June 07, 2006, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Why would a woman go to college for 4 years just to get knocked up right out of it?
I agree with pretty much your entire post up to this point. Although the preceding sentence is fine, I don't think this one is. Some people may have motivations you don't understand, but more importantly I thought that was a very rude way of stating your opinion.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Why would a woman go to college for 4 years just to get knocked up right out of it?
I agree with pretty much your entire post up to this point. Although the preceding sentence is fine, I don't think this one is. Some people may have motivations you don't understand, but more importantly I thought that was a very rude way of stating your opinion.
Your absolutely right, I edited it, and tried to tone it down a bit. I just have very strong feelings on the matter.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
My brother's wife is one of the most brilliant people ever. Oxford, Harvard Law, $40,000 scholorship...
Yet she wants to be a stay at home mom and take care of my beautiful nieces. I can't say as I blame her. She's got all this education but what she really wants to do is raise her kids.
And what's wrong with that? The purpose of education is to make money, yes. But it's also to become a more rounded and intellegent person.
How many people get impractical degrees? Philosophy, Elisabethian Poetry, Bi-sexual Asian Studies?
Education is an end in and of itself. 4 years of college then being a stay at home mom sounds like a great life to me. (though a dangerous one if your man turns out to be no good.)
Pix
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
If your man turns out to be "no good" you can bet the 4 years of college (or similar education) will prove to have been a very good choice.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Karl: Very true. Even if you have an impractical major. (but it's better to have a practical one)
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I can see that point, about the man not turning out to be a good guy. Even then, thats her choice to go to college "just in case". Still, going back to the original post, I don't see why the government should have to help out.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Or if your man is hit by a bus, struck by a debilitating disease, etc.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Or if your man is hit by a bus, struck by a debilitating disease, etc.
I sell insurance, so I could go on forever about that one. Everyone should get some type of life insurance as early as they can possibly afford it. Even before getting married and having kids, while they are still insurable. I can't tell you how many people I deal with that wait until rates are either too high for them to afford it, or until its too late altogether.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't think I can ever understand why someone would go to college for 4 years, and decide to have a child right away without being financially stable enough.
Believe it or not, the data suggests that those women who do THIS make more money over the course of their lives than women who start their careers after graduation, wait to get "on their feet," and THEN have kids. Apparently putting a career on hold for a few years is worse than delaying a career.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'd just like to point out that I don't think the gov't should do anything about it either. In fact, I think the gov't should do as little as possible.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
When you have a bunch of student loans to pay off and your income is barely enough to support yourself, and you decide to have a child, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Honestly, I don't think the government should support someone who knows they are in financial straits and goes ahead anyway by adding to that burden by having a child.
I think that people who do that are very foolish, and I really don't see why the rest of society should have to pay for that person's foolishness. If the government defers a student loan, then it is losing revenue that will have to made up for either by raising taxes for everyone else, or cutting health care and education for everyone else.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by jh: I think that people who do that are very foolish, and I really don't see why the rest of society should have to pay for that person's foolishness. If the government defers a student loan, then it is losing revenue that will have to made up for either by raising taxes for everyone else, or cutting health care and education for everyone else.
Actually deffering the loan isn't all that bad. The government gets to keep adding on interest without any money being paid towards the principal.
My wife's loan was deffered while she was getting her Master's degree. They didn't even give her a choice, we just kept sending in payments anyways, to keep the interest from building.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
It seems that even though the government is adding interest, no money is going into the government until the deferment is up. With rocketing expenditures in Iraq, health care, and education, wouldn't that be a problem? We already have an exceptionally high deficit without decreasing government revenues.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by jh: It seems that even though the government is adding interest, no money is going into the government until the deferment is up. With rocketing expenditures in Iraq, health care, and education, wouldn't that be a problem? We already have an exceptionally high deficit without decreasing government revenues.
I don't think it would make a huge deal. It would be almost staggered anyways. As people go on defferments, others would be coming off.
Deferrments are possible as it is anyways if you can prove financial burden, or are going back for another degree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:With rocketing expenditures in Iraq, health care, and education, wouldn't that be a problem?
Not particularly. The federal student loan program is a drop in the bucket.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But what if it just happened? What if dispite taking the pill, using condoms and everything else a person STILL gets pregnant and since they don't believe in abortion, they end up with a baby anyway? Tehn somehow some disaster strikes that leads to not having a whole lot of cash. Anything can happen. Me, I doubt I'd want to have a child until me and my partner (if i ever get one) had a stable and loving relationship. I'd wait at least a couple of years ideally, but who knows what will happen?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Syn: Adoption. There are plenty of people waiting to adopt an infant.
And if Gay Marriage ever gets legalized, there will be a small increase in the demand for children. (We are a small percentage of the population. Some of us already adopt. Where it's legal.)
Honestly, I'd love to see a world where the abortion rate plummetted and the adoption rate (by gays, straights and even singles) soared.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It would have to be open adoption in some cases... I don't know if I could give up a child of mine to someone else to raise unless my back was to the wall.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The purpose of education is to make money, yes. But it's also to become a more rounded and intellegent person.
No, the purpose of education is to cultivate a capacity for mental growth and moral development. It just so happens that people who have cultivated their capacity for mental growth and moral development learn the ins and outs of varied vocations more fluently. I'm also of the opinion that these people are more likely to be life long learners and better, more adaptive parents, wiser citizens, and grander individuals. They are also the kind of peole I care to spend my time with.
When education is treated as vocational training, in lieu of rigorous general schooling, it's a failure to serve the idea of democracy and of the individual human, and we are complicit in shepherding all of our children into some higher or lower class of wage-slavery. Businesses want-- maybe "lust" is a better word-- to turn schools into job training centers, it cuts down on the amount of paid vocational training that the business has to do, and also cuts down on any pesky by-products an employee's well-developed sense of humanity. Business concerns want wage-slaves and consumers, not whistle blowers and ethicists. The problem is that the demands of virtue and democracy call for whistle blowers and ethicists.
By requiring specialized degrees from their applicants, companies exert pressure on schools to produce more business type programs and graduates. And in this scam, ignorant HR directors are serving as the Eichmanns to this destruction of liberal education. If you've looked for a job in the last few years, you'll notice that businesses are getting more casual with posting absurd degree requirements for jobs, which goes far to push students to concentrate on those absurd fields.
*whew*
Yeah, I'm about half-way done with a collection of essays by Mortimer Adler, and they are really getting my blood boiling. What he is saying is tying so much of what I have thought before together that I'm willing to go one step further than Adler does.
So let's clear this up here and now. The purpose of education is not to make more money. Education primarily informs how we spend our leisure time, secondarily, the vocation we choose, and lastly, the nuts and bolts of a given job.
Once I finish the book, I'll give a write up on it. The thesis is thus: Public education and universal sufferage in an industrial democracy haven't been serious issues until the 20th century. The idea that the public has to cultivate all citizens to be fit for the liberties available in a free society is historically unique. All of our models for education presuppose that there is a class of workers who aren't allowed any leisure time, and a class of learners. The workers get job training. The leisure class get a crack at a robust sense of humanity, in the liberal arts.
A rigorous education informs how one spends his/her leisure time, not how one digs ditches.
It used to be the case the that general run where expected to labor, procreate and die, preferably all in silence, or at least in humble supplication.
The problem universal sufferage poses for education is that universal sufferage acknowledges that everyone is a member of the leisure class, and has a right to attain the humanity that such a class admits, which opens up a huge can of worms, the effects of which the world has yet to understand, including how to deal in a world where we have to take 6 billion egos seriously, as opposed to just worrying about the dignity of a handful of aristocrats.
[ June 07, 2006, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
What was your major again, Snowden?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The purpose of education is not to make more money.
The purpose of education is not to make more money. But for many people, that is the purpose of a degree.
Confusing a degree with an education is a common mistake.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:When education is treated as vocational training, in lieu of rigorous general schooling, we fail the idea of democracy and the individual humanity, and are complicit in shepherding all of our children into some higher or lower class of wage-slavery.
The idea of rigorous general schooling would do such wonders for eliminating forced economic strata, of course, as students would all accept the importance of attaining such education to become well rounded individuals. Students have intellectual and social maturity like that, seeing the value of education beyond immediate tangible returns. That maturity is what sets our nation's youth apart from... its... adults?
You just have to tell me where you buy your rose colored glasses. I'd love to pick up a pair.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Flying Cow,
Students don't and shouldn't have the final word in setting educational policy. My problem isn't with the student's decisions, it's with the administration's, the school board's, and the teachers' expressed priorities.
quote:The purpose of education is not to make more money. But for many people, that is the purpose of a degree.
Confusing a degree with an education is a common mistake.
How high and in what varied positions does this mistake occur? I think it goes all the way to the top, and out to even school presidents, parents, and faculty. To this extent, the curriculm and the expectations that go along with getting a degree are unduly influenced by commercial interests.
I don't have a problem with vocational schools or technical schools, in their place. I just don't want to turn our Universities and grammar schools into them.
[ June 07, 2006, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I actually agree with that.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Reducing Engineering and Science to "VoTech"... >=(
I'm reading this as you guys don't want science and engineering to be in your universities. Or a business school for that matter. I'm sure you don't MEAN that.
You go to University to learn how to make money. You pick a University over a VoTech so that, while you're learning how to make money you're becoming a philosopher, an avid reader, a singer, a painter, someone who speaks a foreign language... You're becoming a rounded individual and not a worker drone.
If you go to University simply for the rounding part and not to learn how to make money you run a greater risk of living in a trailer home working at a cheap gift shop. http://tinyurl.com/p6smd Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't have a problem with vocational schools or technical schools, in their place.
Which would be somewhere beneath universities in standing of worthiness, morality, desireability...
You're a man of the people, Irami. All the way. Maybe the next time you get your air-conditioning repaired or your car fixed, you can be sure to explain how little you value their worth as people. If only they had been moral, enlightened,thoughtful people like you, and gone to college.
Then they could sneer at the less well educated in a more refined way!
Edit: Actually, Irami has reduced the sciences in moral worth to cavemen banging rocks together.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm reading this as you guys don't want science and engineering to be in your universities. Or a business school for that matter. I'm sure you don't MEAN that.
A Bachelor of Arts is a degree conferred upon someone who has studied how to learn. That's why it's called a bachelor's. That's why the final ceremony is called a commencement, it's a beginning of learning. A Bachelor of Arts indicates that a person has studied the liberal arts. The degree signifies that the student can read well, write well, measure well, and properly understood, it is an unspecialized degree.
All of the education prior to recieving a Bachelor of Arts exists to prepare someone for a life time of learning and the fruitful employment of their leisure time. Somehow, schools started trying to produce learned individuals instead of ones skilled in learning, and the nation is the poorer for it.
I happen to agree with Adler on a few issues: elementary schools have defaulted on their responsibility to provide a liberal arts education, the burden has passed to high schools, when the high schools stumble in fulfilling their obligations, the duty moves on to the colleges, who are sidetracked with specialization, then the children are shunted to professional schools, the faculty of which are appalled that their law students, medical students, or engineering students, haven't yet thought well on how to read, write, or measure, cannot perform these activities with any degree of perspicuity.
Secondly, I'm curious about Adler's proposal of schooling for 12 years, from four to sixteen, with a liberal arts curriculum, with the goal being that at the end of this schooling, a child is capable of learning any vocation that needs be taught, and also has glimpsed the vast expanse of compelling knowledge to be acquired, along with obtaining the tools and sensibility to study it.
Then we would mandate that at sixteen that the student would be expected to find some remunerative work for a period of two to four years before deciding whether to attend college, but that all students would be expected and capable after those 12 years of schooling to learn and communicate at a level commensurate with attaining a life long education.
quote:Maybe the next time you get your air-conditioning repaired or your car fixed, you can be sure to explain how little you value their worth as people.
Look, if a machine could fix a car or repair an air conditioner, we'd have them do it and the world would be a better place for bargain. People aren't people with respect to those vocations, but people are people with respect to their leisure activities, thinking, conversing, reading, writing, political activities, in short, all of those activities which are good for their own sake.
I don't mind if a machine repairs my air conditioning, but I don't want a machine to decide to vote for me.
There are mixed vocations like the teacher, lawyer, and professional politician, vocations that are at the same time leisure activities and labor activities. That's also the reason why we have a hard time compensating these activities, and we use words like stipend, honorarium, and gratuity.
[ June 08, 2006, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by LisB1121 (Member # 1703) on :
Hmmm. I agree that K-12 schools should have a serious commitment to the liberal arts, and work on producing thoughtful citizens, rather then mere workers. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the work involved in being a mechanic.
I can't help but think of Kaylee, the mechanic in Firefly , who says..."Machines just got workings, and they talk to me." I suppose one could argue that she's really an engineer, and not merely a mechanic. But that's my point - a lot of seemingly simple tasks can be made into more by human ingenuity and attitude.
Take service jobs.. They can be soul sucking pits that one feels stuck in. Or, one can feel valuable, take pride in giving good service, and be a bright beacon in people's daily lives. I think that most corporations do a terrible job in encouraging workers to enjoy giving services. Management does a pop-psychology gimmick incentive to boost morale once or twice a year, but then pay crap money, and treat their workers like cogs in a machine.
My personal experience is that wait service is much better in family owned restaurants then in chain fast food places. (There’s the occasional kid who thinks the family business is dumb and wants to be elsewhere exception.) Overall, that family may not be making much more after expenses then they would working for someone. I think part of the difference is the family is giving a service to a community, has a sense of place, and knows it. The fast food worker isn’t connected to the community through his work, and his work place is certainly interchangeable with any other restaurant in that chain.
Anyways, that's my rant on citizen vs. worker drone.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Students don't and shouldn't have the final word in setting educational policy. My problem isn't with the student's decisions, it's with the administration's, the school board's, and the teachers' expressed priorities.
I'm not talking about policy. You can set whatever policy you want. You can teach whatever you want. You can set up your ideal educational environment.
Students will still stratify themselves into those who value the system you have established and succeed, and those who do not value the system you have established (or value other aspects of their lives more) and do not succeed.
It's fine to say you want all students to have a broad, general, liberal arts education. It's another to get those same students to read and do basic computation in a practical setting. Some students will take to the system like fish to water, others will fight it at every step.
You will still have stratification of society based on education, and that stratification will still break down along socio-economic lines.
quote:People aren't people with respect to those vocations, but people are people with respect to their leisure activities, thinking, conversing, reading, writing, political activities, in short, all of those activities which are good for their own sake.
This exposes an elitism and disdain of people who choose vocations instead of what you consider more worthwhile activities. I know mechanics who love their jobs, and think and converse about cars and engines in their spare time. They enjoy the topic, they enjoy their work, they support their families, and they try to impart interest in the subject to their children - even though they may not know Shakespeare from a hole in the wall or care to talk about the same subjects you would.
Identifying yourself with your vocation does not make you any less of a person. Not caring about getting a liberal arts education doesn't make you any less of a person either.
Some people would lead far happier, more productive, less self-destructive lives if they were allowed to focus on a vocation instead of a liberal arts education. They would feel more validated through their successes and set meaningful goals that interest them.
Your comparison of the people who perform these jobs to machines, and your subsequent statement that you wouldn't want machines to vote for you, seems like an awfully elitist and superior attitude to me.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:People aren't people with respect to those vocations, but people are people with respect to their leisure activities, thinking, conversing, reading, writing, political activities, in short, all of those activities which are good for their own sake.
The practices of science and engineering entail plenty of thinking.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Identifying yourself with your vocation does not make you any less of a person. Not caring about getting a liberal arts education doesn't make you any less of a person either.
You are right. I'll make the stronger statement that identifying yourself with your vocation does not make you a person at all, it makes you ditch digger or whatever. And not caring about getting a liberal arts education makes you an ignorant person. The burdens and benefits of liberty as well as the virtues that attend living in a free society are reserved for people qua people, not for the animal species laborer.
quote:Some people would lead far happier, more productive, less self-destructive lives if they were allowed to focus on a vocation instead of a liberal arts education. They would feel more validated through their successes and set meaningful goals that interest them.
Your comparison of the people who perform these jobs to machines, and your subsequent statement that you wouldn't want machines to vote for you, seems like an awfully elitist and superior attitude to me.
I'm not one to base policy on the ancient and inaccurate assumption that as we are all equal in the eyes of God, we ought to be considered equally equal in the eyes of men. Some people, often in virtue of their attention to the liberal arts, are better than others.
Simply put: the education that the best parents would have for their children-- which I believe would be a rigorous one in the liberal arts-- is the education our public institutions ought to expect of every child in this democracy.
[ June 08, 2006, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The hysterical thing about this entire discussion is that Irami's entire lifestyle-that may be an exaggeration, but it's certainly true of much of his lifestyle-is built on the effort, work, and lives of people who are to him ignorant machines.
The arrogance, hypocrisy, and blindness in your disdainful attitude are nothing new, but the way you boldly restate it time and again in new and interesting ways-probably due to your liberal arts education-is always entertaining.
quote:Some people, often in virtue of their attention to the liberal arts, are better than others.
This in particular is pretty disturbing...possibly appalling, frankly. I believe one of the goals of a liberal arts education should be to eradicate this sort of elitist, dismissive and bigoted thinking from humanity in general and its students in particular.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and it's clear Irami has never been to visit an ER. Those foolish, empty doctors. Their job is nothing!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That makes me think... I am a firm believer in education and making it more accesible for all people and not just the elite, those that have the money for 600 dollar SAT courses and prep schools. All people should be able to study as much as they want, whatever they want. I'd be all for free college education, but this would sadly never happen. I went to college, graduated and still ended up droning away for nearly two years on a job I hated. It has been a long struggle trying to find full time work, a permanent job with benefits so I can have the security to really follow my dreams of becoming a writer. I don't regard being a mechanic or something as a lower or lesser job. I wouldn't mind doing it as it would probably make me a good amount of money. A person could go to college for 4 years and still go to a technical school to learn to repair air conditioners. People should have the freedome to work at any job they want to and not have to be forced into jobs they hate and despise because of a lower socioeconomic class. I know that is a fear of mine, being shunted RIGHT BACK INTO those dull jobs that make me no money at all and bore me eto the point of tears And yet now I am in a white collor job that does just that... Bored... not challeged... not making enough money. it is a difficult path and folks should find a way to make it easier somehow. I'm all for liberal arts education,l but against things such as being forced to take a subject I have no interest in. I'd rahter be able to study english writing, Japanese, Japanese culture and all the stuff I have wanted to study since I was a kid. It seems hopeless that I will ever get a job that will make me a great deal of money, I have no experience and trying to get that is so hard, but I want to study what I feel passionate about, not just a vocation that may become obsolete sometime in the future... But, writing is cool because the world always needs writers but I doubt that anyone would want to read the weird stuff I want to write.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm all for liberal arts education,l but against things such as being forced to take a subject I have no interest in.
Seriously, Syne, you need to get past this.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I'm all for liberal arts education,l but against things such as being forced to take a subject I have no interest in.
Seriously, Syne, you need to get past this.
Not really. Why should i be tormented with difficult math that I hate, that has nothing to do with what I am interested in studying and that tortures me and torments me and causes me to fail? It's been like that in school every since I was a kid. I wanted to learn more about Japan and Scotland and things like that but was tormented by difficult math, gym and also American history. (Which I didn't learn to like until I read Johnny Tremain, but really, it's extremely depressing from my point of view.) I simply want to study what I want to study. That is not unreasonable. Now, not wanting to get graded, that is unreasonable. I hate getting graded >.<
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Syne, you sound petulant.
quote:Why should i be tormented with difficult math that I hate, that has nothing to do with what I am interested in studying and that tortures me and torments me and causes me to fail?
Because a certain level of math is necessary for you to live a responsible life as a free American. You are going to have to make decisions on the nation's behalf, and your own behalf, that call for you to be able to evaluate sets of numbers.
If you don't study a certain level of math, you are just going to be the pawn of demagogues, and you and every one around you is liable to suffer for your ignorance. You whining about Math is much the same as Bush whining about having to field questions from a hostile audience.
I know all of this isn't what you want, but it's possible that you aren't wise enough to want to appropriate things, so the school, in exercising its pressumed wisdom and greater authority, requires you to take these classes, and from my scant knowledge of your situation, I'm going to side with the school.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes, a certain level... But I truly am terrible at it. I don't know why. It's always been like that. Now I can't even do simple math without getting a headache... I reckon it's how I am wired. Oddly enough, it woul dbe cool to have a single person teach me about quantum physics. Yes, a certain level of math is not so bad, but quadratic equations? Calculus? Nightmarish trigonometry? No way.
Posted by LisB1121 (Member # 1703) on :
I actually think high schools should spend more time teaching discrete math and statistical analysis, and less time on trig and conic sections. At least, my sophmore and junior year math classes spent forever on these topics. I've never used these branches of mathematics in a non-academic setting. It's hard for students to see the use of more theoretical math if they aren't planning on taking calculus. But that's just my opinion.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wanted to study Japanese instead. And Kendo in gym. In my ideal school things would focus on what folks want to do the most. So I'd get to study history, writing, Japanese, and all sorts of cultural things.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Now I can't even do simple math without getting a headache... I reckon it's how I am wired.
Who said there wouldn't be pain?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Syn, You lack focus and discipline - from what I've seen, not just in mathmatical thinking, but in all your thinking. Regardless of that path you choose, this lack is going to be a serious obstacle.
Regardless of your wiring, this is something you can develop, and the ordered thinking that goes along with many of the things you're decrying is a good aid in developing it.
Irami, da Vinci, Descartes, Locke, Franking, Mill, Russell. These are all great philosophers who were also scientists and mechanics. You may want consider that there are many aspects of these endevours that enhance one's abilities to think.
On a different note, what do you have to show for yourself? What I mean is, I've never seen a reason to afford you the position high over everyone else that you seem to think is your due. What is it that you think raises you to this exalted place and what do you think you display that others should treat what you say as anything more than empty arrogance?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not really. I am working on focus and discipline. But I am simply not good at math. I don't know what the problem is. I am terrible at it. I can't even add or substract 3 digit numbers without a calculator. But I do play little number games involving multiples of 3. Other than that... Just not good at it. But a total lack of focus, no. The problem is that I am interested in too many things at exactly the same time which is a bit overwhelming. But, at least as a writer I can be interested in a lot of things and throw them into a book. So perhaps it's not a completely bad thing except when I try to pay attention to too many things at the same time.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Syn, We could do a poll, here at Hatrack, on "What is Syn's greatest problem." and I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of answers will be "lacks discipline and focus". It's one of the major defining characteristics of your interaction here.
You can add or subtract 3 digit numbers without a calculator. There's a world of difference between finding something difficult and being unable to do it.
Lots of people are writers, but a much smaller number have actually written things. What have you written?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
A few essays, several stories... Mostly rants and the like... But I am starting to get a bit irratated. Yes, I'm not perfect, I'm working on it. I'm working on getting a better job, getting the stability to write and working on this novel.
Not being good in math doesn't mean I have a lack of focus or something. I'm just not good at math. There's like a mental block or something and it's been like that for years.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I am working on focus and discipline.
This is tricky. I do think that people can habituate themselves to more focused and discipline habits. (Aristotle)
There is also a sense in which moral decisions concerning focus and discipline are decisions made out of time and place, as in, you have to make a decision, without regard to present or possible future external circumstance, that you are going to be focused.(Kant)
I think it's a blend. Kant would think that the idea of "working on being focused" is unintelligible. The upside of Kant's view is that it leaves open the possiblity of a sort of instant revolution. As soon as you make the decision to be more focused and disciplined, then you are a new, more focused and disciplined person. Most people think this view doesn't respect the weight of the baggage that goes with years of being unfocused and undisciplined. Who knows? My guess is that the whole business is like superhero teleportation. You know how heroes who can teleport get squeamish if they can't see where they are going. Making the decision to be focused and disciplined becomes all the harder if you don't know what focused and more disciplined "looks" like.
I'm just riffing, but I think that this is where the importance of role models comes in.
[ June 08, 2006, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Syn, I'm a mean guy. I'm also trying to help you. I think you have it in you to be a good writer. I also think, pretty strongly, that, as you are now, you will never be that writer. Although I could be wrong, it seems very clear to me that you have this problem.
So be it, I'm done for now.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think I have it in me too. That's why I have been working for ages on this novel... It's been years, but I'm glad it is taking so long. Otherwise a lot of feelings and experiences would have never gone in. I'm working on it. I'm not just sitting on my thumbs, I'm on the path. And that is why I am getting aggravated. I hate being lectured. That is what my relatives do. If I wanted that I'd live with them. I lecture myself enough as it is.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Wow, Irami. Given your dim view of humanity, I find it difficult to take anything you say in any sort of serious light. Next you'll be advocating "ignorance cleansing" to wipe the earth of the chaff, leaving only the privileged elite.
I'm very glad the world doesn't work the way you want it to. I am part of that educated group you raise up on that pedestal, and sharing it with your high horse forces me to avoid piles of dung.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Irami, It looks to me like you're betraying one of the major weakness of eschewing science and real world applications in favor of Socratic thought experiments.
You wonder, "Can people work on being focused and disciplined?", talk about what two guys would say about it and then make the final judgement based on nothing but your own thoughts. And this makes sense to you as a resolution to the problem.
I'm reminded of the bit in Asimov's Foundation series where one characters idea of archaeology is to read what other people have written and weigh their arguments in his mind without ever visiting the places that are being talked about.
I come from a somewhat different tradition. If I'm doing archaeology, I'm going to get right down in the dirt. So, if we're talking about if people can develop discipline and focus and, if so, how it can be done, I'm going to look at attempts to help people develop discipline and focus to see what, if anything, is sucessful. And if there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence and I consider it important enough, I'll do my own experiments.
In this case, thankfully, there is a long history in psychological therapy of attempting to foster these qualities in people. If you're interested in how things work in the real world as opposed to just in your (or Kant's or Socrates') head, I'd suggest reading up on it.
[ June 08, 2006, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Excuse me while the libertarian in me has yet another round of nausea and vertigo at the thought of another inane mandate.
Irami, We'd let ANY job that can be done by a machine be done by a machine. Even your job whatever it is. We automate as much as possible because it frees us to do other, more interesting things.
The guy who mows lawns for minimum wage is more useful to society than someone who does nothing but sit around and think about how much smarter he is than everyone else and how he should mandate everyone do things his way. He may be dumber than you, Snowden but at least he helps hold up the world.
And I would think someone whose ancestry was tormented the way yours were simply because people thought they were a lesser species would be a little more sensitive to the thought of equality.
As far as identifying with your job.. ya know, for some people their job is their hobby and they'd do it for fun if they weren't getting paid. Is it wrong for them to proudly announce "I'm a chemist!" "I'm an accountant!" "I'm a mechanic!"
I believe it was JS Mill who said we need a mixed bag of pleasures. Doing nothing but sitting in your ivory tower thinking Deep Thoughts about how we should force others to follow our deep thoughts through mandates is but one kind of pleasure. Maybe you should pick an active pleasure. Maybe you should pick a lower pleasure.(*)
You're not a rounded person without them.
Pix
(*) An Active pleasure is one that requires more physical activity than turning the page of a book. A Lower pleasure would be one that is not particularly intellectual like watching a football game.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The funny thing is in Irami's universe, making things work is of less value than thinking about making things work.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: I am a firm believer in education and making it more accesible for all people and not just the elite, those that have the money for 600 dollar SAT courses and prep schools.
I know several people that got 1600s on the SAT and at least 50 to 100 more that had scores were over 1500. None of them took SAT prep courses. At most, they bought a $30 book for a few sample tests. Only one went to a prep school, and she dropped out of it cause it was stupid busywork. She was the only one that didn't end up with a free ride to college either.
The most amusing case was the guy who had straight Cs in high school, but aced every AP test he took. Then he took the SAT once drunk, once high and then once sober, just because he was curious how he'd do sober. I can't remember whether the drunk or the high one was his 1600, but he did a lot worse sober.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: It just so happens that people who have cultivated their capacity for mental growth and moral development learn the ins and outs of varied vocations more fluently. I'm also of the opinion that these people are more likely to be life long learners and better, more adaptive parents, wiser citizens, and grander individuals. They are also the kind of peole I care to spend my time with.
No wonder you are out of touch with reality. I guess you wouldn't want to come if I invited you to dinner some time, since you think so little of me.
quote: A Bachelor of Arts indicates that a person has studied the liberal arts. The degree signifies that the student can read well, write well, measure well, and properly understood, it is an unspecialized degree.
Many (if not most) people with unspecialized BAs, after they get out of school, read crap (look at the popularity of the DaVinci Code) write like crap (they think the DaVinci Code is Literature) and certainly can't measure worth a damn.
quote: There are mixed vocations like the teacher, lawyer, and professional politician, vocations that are at the same time leisure activities and labor activities. That's also the reason why we have a hard time compensating these activities, and we use words like stipend, honorarium, and gratuity.
Teaching is a "leisure" activity? Law is a "leisure" activity? I might grant you the politicians, but certainly not the other to groups!
quote: The burdens and benefits of liberty as well as the virtues that attend living in a free society are reserved for people qua people, not for the animal species laborer.
I can't believe you compared human laborers to animals. That's the justification for slavery. Or is it ok if they are Mexicans and not Black?
quote: I'm not one to base policy on the ancient and inaccurate assumption that as we are all equal in the eyes of God, we ought to be considered equally equal in the eyes of men. Some people, often in virtue of their attention to the liberal arts, are better than others.
So you think your ancestors should still be slaves? A slave didn't have time to "attend to liberal arts" while they were out picking cotton! If they didn't attend to it they weren't good people.
Although this principle is what the Chicago patronage system is built on. I don't know why you were so appalled by Chicago politics.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I believe it was JS Mill who said we need a mixed bag of pleasures. Doing nothing but sitting in your ivory tower thinking Deep Thoughts about how we should force others to follow our deep thoughts through mandates is but one kind of pleasure. Maybe you should pick an active pleasure. Maybe you should pick a lower pleasure.
Mill made the distinction between higher pleasures(He liked to read poetry) and lower pleasures(like methamphetamines), but he made this distinction in service to the argument that seeking higher pleasures is qualitatively better, not just in short-lived circumstances, but in the long view of the human condition. Mill understood man as a progressive being and that the pleasures that scooted him along that progression were substantively better than the pleasures that were merely titillating.
I'm not the biggest fan of Mill's. That's tresopax. But I think that Mill is more right than wrong with respect to this issue.
AJ,
In defense of Syne's post, I'm sure that I know as many ultra high scorers as you do, and the vast majority of the kids in my pool of observation took a class or got private tutoring, and the honest ones admit that the experience raised their score a non-negligible amount. We don't need Scopatz to tell us that we are both dealing with skewed samples. Of course, I've met people who scored a perfect and didn't take a class, but every one of those kids I've met were exposed to the advantages of a rigorous and classical education either at home or from their school, and it seems to me that if you have kind of education, it doesn't matter whether you take the test strung out on crack or hung over from last night's bender, you are going to score a whole lot better than the general run.
If anything, my argument is that those with such a solid early education are going to more easily apply the insights gained from $30 book.
[ June 10, 2006, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I agree my sample is skewed, cause I lived on an entire dorm floor of National Merit Scholars (which was btw 3/4 male and 1/4 female) As far as sample size, there were 80 people right there, and I knew at least a couple hundred more than that, as 50 out of the 60 people in my Chemical engineering classes alone (none of which overlapped with the people on my floor) were National Merit scholars. OU recruits more national merit scholars than any other university in the nation.
Most of them *didn't* go to high quality schools and get the sorts of education you are describing. Many were from very rural areas oir inner city ghettos. They may have been in the honors/AP sections of their regular high school (if the high school had an honors program) but that was it. I will grant you that the commonality between all of them was that they Read. But it wasn't necessarily Literature that they read either, there were a heck of a lot of Star Wars books floating around along with Ender.
The other self-selection that happened with the people I knew, is that in a way we were all sellouts from your perspective before we ever walked in the door of the U. of Oklahoma. You see, even though we all got into the elite of the elite schools, we chose the free education, over the theoretically "highest quality" liberal arts education.
But now, I'm not in major debt and earn enough money to do whatever the heck I want during my leisure time. I own a house, am financially and am not one of your "animal laborers" that you disdain.
You are an IT guy, you fall closer to the classification of an "animal laborer" than I do for that matter. Although, I strongly object to the term "animal laborer" when applied to any human being, whether in the first or third worlds.
I am where I am because I have a technical degree in Chemical Engineering, and all manner of technical and scientific knowledge. If I didn't have an extremely broad science background, I wouldn't be good at my job, heck most of the time I even enjoy my job. Perhaps you would view that as "leisure" I'm not sure, since you think teachers are "leisure" workers also.
I also write better than most people, even though I was never required in my childhood to write a paper, ever. In college, over a span of 10 years, I wrote a grand total of 3 non-technical papers. (And I had to take the same general ed courses as everyone else.) Although the engineering college I was in required us to do all manner of technical writing so that we could communicate effectively to non-technical persons.
I will grant that my science background is significantly larger than most people, and I would emphasize a much broader science education for children, because if they are only exposed to it when they are older, the fear of the unknown overrides the vestiges of childhood curiousity.
Although I'm sure you'd disdain the fact that I selfishly spend a significant amount of my disposable income (that I have because of my degree) on dog shows, rather than donating to art museums or educational institutions, like you think I *should* be doing. On the other hand, I know exactly how much property tax I pay to the schools as a property owner, even though I don't have any children of my own, and I am a net gain to my community as a result, contributing to resources that I am not using.
I *am* a Chemical Engineer and who are you to denigrate that it is an integral part of my identity? Who are you to say that a skilled master mill worker is an animal laborer because he is an immigrant and can barely read, much less take a liberal arts class?
AJ
[ June 09, 2006, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He's Irami, that's who!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
As an English/History/Politics major who is strongly interested in other areas such as Archaeology, Sociology, Philosophy and Religion I am constantly coming up against scientists and engineers (including my father) who consider what I study to be 'lesser' because they are 'fluff' subjects. I also come across people in my own fields who have a poor opinion of scientists and engineers. I've heard such things like they are uncultured and closed-minded.
The bias comes from both sides. And both sides, are, in a sense, absolutely right. Many (not all; many) scientists do not pay attention to the humanities and simply have no idea how to approach certain ideas, or a very limited idea of history, especially if the only history (as an example) classes they've been required to take in high school is a history of their own country only as is the case in Ontario and possibly all of Canada. This results in an astonishing level of ignorance about the history of the world as a whole.
In the same way, many people who focus on the humanities are completely ignorant of certain scientific concepts. I know; I graduated with only a grade 10 level of Biology and grade 11 of Chemistry. Now I find myself driven to figure out even a basic idea of how the world works. I am lucky that I have an very strong interest in science and so I am willing to take the effort to continue learning or I would be very ignorant indeed.
In my experience a balanced education is by far the best. Young people should be forced to learn a variety of subjects because a wide understanding of the world is far more useful and healthy than a narrow one.
quote:Not being good in math doesn't mean I have a lack of focus or something. I'm just not good at math. There's like a mental block or something and it's been like that for years.
In Syn's defence, her trouble with mathematics is not exactly unsual. Some people seem to simply have a real problem thinking in a mathematical way and thus dealing with mathematical problems. Why? I don't now. Syn's right; trouble with math is not necessarily to do with a lack of focus, it can be simply a difficult subject for some people.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Banna, it's okay. My boyfriend is a mechanical engineer, and I have a bachelor of business administration, so we're animals too. Let's start a farm.
-pH
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Teshi, I'm not saying what you study is specifically lesser in any way shape or form. I'm saying that many people who do study what you do, come out lacking the broadminded thought and communication skills that Irami thinks they should be gaining by studying those things.
I also strongly object to being told that what I studied is worthless, only for laborers and you could easily learn it on the job if you already know history and philosophy. Cause it isn't true.
AJ
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Teshi, I see what you're saying. Think about how I feel, especially considering the attitudes of some. Business school is clearly just for people who want to make an easy buck and doesn't teach anything useful at all, right?
Even WITHOUT my common curriculum courses (which included music, history, philosophy, religion, epic literature) I still had to learn plenty of non-"trade school" things. Business classes, good business classes, require you to understand philosophy, psychology, statistics, and to have good writing skills, among many, many other things. It frustrates me when people belittle business students, and I think that those kinds of negative attitudes clearly show a complete lack of understanding of the scope of a good business curriculum.
-pH
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:come out lacking the broadminded thought and communication skills that Irami thinks they should be gaining by studying those things.
Well, it's the same with any education. You can't really force people to be broadminded, especially en masse.
EDIT: However, you can force them to learn as much as possible and in a wide a spectrum as possible.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:you can force them to learn as much as possible and in a wide a spectrum as possible.
The trouble is that you can't, really. You can force them to sit a class in order to graduate, but that's no guarentee that they will learn (by which I mean remember, think about, and retain much past the final exam). It's the horse to water problem. Some people just aren't interested in some things, and forcing too much won't solve the problem.
I do agree that a certain degree of competance in a wide range should be required, so I'm not proposing that math and history, etc., should be completely optional. With enough resources, I think it would be possible to provide electives within an area that would appeal more to those who don't particularly want to study that area. For example, sf/fan lit classes would probably attract the interest of a different crowd than Moderism. Or in a physics class, focus on theoretical physics- string theory, etc -that would give a motivation and a reason to people like, say, me, to learn some basics so as to not be even more lost.
In conclusion, the trouble with education is that it's hard to find the resources to enable treating ALL subjects (including history, literature, philosophy, psychology, etc.) as though they are about more than banging rocks together.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:you can force them to learn as much as possible and in a wide a spectrum as possible.
This is what I don't agree with. I'm advocating that students learn how to read, listen, write, and speak well. The first two are active; the second two are passive. I believe that this is more important than taking a smattering of subjects and treating all worldly knowledge like a plate of tapas.
At the end of my brand of education, the person doesn't have any illusions that they "know" how to do anything, but the person will be adequately adept at learning to inquire with due perspicuity, setting them down the road to a life of learning adequate to the demands and liberties of a person living in a free society.
I'm not advocating for wide breadth of specialized formal education. I'm advocating for a core, and for my money, all of these social and behavioral sciences could be done away with outright, especially at the high school level.
Anecdote:
I was chatting with a teacher least weekend. She teaches "Consumer Education." Apparently that's the name of a class. And it's darn near a requirement. It's a city school and there are too many kids who end up pregnant or with unmanageable cell phone bills, and the schools think that the best way to address at least the latter problem is require "Consumer Education."
I: I didn't take anything like that when I was in high school.
Teacher: You aren't from Chicago.
I: California. I don't know if I agree with such a class.
Teacher: You'd be surprised what some of what these kids don't know.
I: I just don't know if I agree with what you are teaching them in that class.
Teacher: Kids need to know how to fill out a check.
I: Yep.
Teacher: They don't know what to put in the "Memo" box.
I: I guess someone should tell them.
Teacher: What would you say?
I: The truth? (Fish swim, birds fly, and I flirt with school teachers, but it's ticklish business to say that I don't respect what you teach, and I doubt you do it very well, but you are still hot. I continued with a bit of sadness.)
Teacher: Yes. What would you say?
(I doubt I'm the first man to try to take a woman to bed with designs on changing the quality of her pedagogy.)
I: I don't know. My approach isn't fashionable, but this what I'd do. I'd write on the board: "Mnemosyne"
She is the mother of the muses. The muses being where we get the term music. I imagine that most kids are familiar with word music. Well, in order to create music, you need the faculty of memory.
Memo is derived from Goddess Mnemosyne, or her Latin cognate memor, where we get the words memory, memorabilia, memorandum, Memorial Day(the holiday we just celebrated), and the memo box is there to help you remember why you wrote the check.
I know it's the long way around, but I think if more children were taught well, we wouldn't need classes like consumer education. _____________
Then again, by my standards, teacher education would look completely different. Instead of training our best and brightest to be administrators, we'd train them to be teachers. I got lucky. She threw me softball, even though she didn't know it was a softball, but with a trickier question, I think that it's a good idea to start with the OED. Granted, this assumes that the teacher has some knowledge of Greek language and culture, Latin language and attending cultures, and possibly German language and culture, but hey, when we speak and teach in English, it's part of the job. It's like teaching early American History without knowing anything about British common law.
[ June 10, 2006, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Reading Iram's comments, all I can think is dang, he has never been in an inner city classroom before.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Even if I were a country boy from a farm in Nebraska, it doesn't change that Mnemosyne is the mother of the muses, and that etymology is a more than adequate mnemonic strategy.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Yes, but that doesn't make it a good way to teach kids to write a check.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I never even knew that That is kind of interesting...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay. Based on what's been said in this thread, I think Irami should volunteer to tutor Synesthesia.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Let's revisit Irami's masterful teaching.
I don't know. My approach isn't fashionable, but this what I'd do. I'd write on the board: "Mnemosyne"
Student: You spelled that wrong.
Irami: I spelled it how it is meant to be spelled.
Student: Then it's wrong. (aside) Teacher don't even know how to spell. (laughter)
Irami: She is the mother of the muses. The muses being where we get the term music.
Student: Who cares where the word comes from? This class is stupid.
Irami: Well, in order to create music, you need the faculty of memory.
Student: No you don't. You can freestyle, and you don't need to remember what you said.
Another student: What's a faculty? Ain't that the teachers and stuff?
Irami: Memo is derived from Goddess Mnemosyne -
Student: Goddess? Who cares about goddesses?
Another student: Goddesses aren't real. My mother says that anyone who talks about goddesses is a witch.
Irami: --or her Latin cognate memor--
Student: Cognate? That greek or something? What's that mean?
Irami: --where we get the words memory, memorabilia, memorandum, Memorial Day(the holiday we just celebrated), and the memo box is there to help you remember why you wrote the check.
Student: Who cares where the words come from? What's a memorabilia?
Student: That's like for drug stuff.
Student: No, stupid, that's paraphernalia.
Student: So what does that have to do with checks?
Student: No offense, teach, but the government don't need me to know about goddesses and strange words - they just need their check on time... so what do I use the memo box for?
***
Irami has obviously never tried to teach a group of students who don't want to learn.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
You forgot to include where the student balls up his sample check and throws it at Irami.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Irami has obviously never tried to teach a group of students who don't want to learn.
Integral to Irami's teaching philosophy has always been the assumption that all people want to learn, or can be taught to want to learn.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Yes, but that doesn't make it a good way to teach kids to write a check.
The kids didn't know what the memo box was for, and now they do. That my approach opened the door for more questions, as Flying Cow's dialogue shows, is a felicitous by-product. It's nice to know a discussion about something seemingly mundane can open the door to thoughtful, honest questions and an awareness of our intellectual legacy.
If the only issues covered in an hour's class are:
Who cares where the word comes from?
Cognate? That greek or something? What's that mean?
So what does that have to do with checks?
Goddess? Who cares about goddesses?
Who cares where the words come from? What's a memorabilia? (The immediate answer to the first question is, "You do," which is why you asked the second question.) ________
It's slow work, but it's the work of developing a core and teaching learners, even if they are initially reluctant, even violent in the form of balled up checks. I find this exercise much more appropriate to the task of education than the pitiable task of merely teaching kids how to fill out forms. Again, it's slow work, but I don't think that it is supposed to be otherwise.
[ June 10, 2006, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The kids didn't know what the memo box was for, and now they do.
This statement is strongly informed by your basic optimism.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What is a memo box though? Can't say I am interested in that. But I am interested in mythology and the like.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
Flying Cow, You forgot the very next question the students are likely to ask, at least if I remember high school and my undergraduate experiences correctly.
Student: Is this gonna be on the test? (while preparing to completely mentally shut down if the answer is "no")
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Irami seems to be focusing on the wrong issue. The students didn't ask what "memo" meant or the where the word came from. They wanted to know why the memo line is on the check and what it's for. Greek mythology won't teach them that. Someone needs to say "That's where you write down why you wrote the check so when you do your bookeeping you know what you spent that money on."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Prole.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Student: Is this gonna be on the test? (while preparing to completely mentally shut down if the answer is "no")
I had a teacher who's automatic answer to this question was yes.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Prole.
Proles and animals are free!
-pH
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Someone needs to say "That's where you write down why you wrote the check so when you do your bookeeping you know what you spent that money on."
No, I disagree. I think that this assumes that kids are stupid, which is much more dangerous than overestimating them, in my estimation. What happens when they see the memo button on their answering machine?
I do think that it would be appropriate to, after my explanation, ask the class what they think the memo box on a check is for, and have them guess, rightly and wrongly, by the light of my explanation.
They should know the sense of the word "Memo," and go from there, such that when they read the phrase "Since time immemorial," they'll have a strong intuition as to the sense of the phrase.
[ June 10, 2006, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:No, I disagree. I think that this assumes that kids are stupid, which is much more dangerous than overestimating them, in my estimation. What happens when they see the memo button on their answering machine?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You know how heroes who can teleport get squeamish if they can't see where they are going. Making the decision to be focused and disciplined becomes all the harder if you don't know what focused and more disciplined "looks" like. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)