NationStates Jolt Archive

I know the papers moan constantly about everything in Britain becoming less intellectually-taxing, but I'm beginning to think that its true. With the invent of Big Brother and new English language syllabus courses featuring lessons on text messaging, im beginning to believe it. Are we turning into a nation of morons? What do you think? Perhaps you could set my mind at ease...

I know the papers moan constantly about everything in Britain becoming less intellectually-taxing, but I'm beginning to think that its true. With the invent of Big Brother and new English language syllabus courses featuring lessons on text messaging, im beginning to believe it. Are we turning into a nation of morons? What do you think? Perhaps you could set my mind at ease...


Look at it the other way, is Britain smartening-up? For that matter, have you heard of any place that is smartening-up at the moment? Sure you're getting dumber. Don't worry though - we're all getting dumber.

Join the club!

Look at it the other way, is Britain smartening-up? For that matter, have you heard of any place that is smartening-up at the moment? Sure you're getting dumber. Don't worry though - we're all getting dumber.

Join the club!
maybe youre right, but do you think there is any underlying reason why people are "dumbing-down?"

I know the papers moan constantly about everything in Britain becoming less intellectually-taxing, but I'm beginning to think that its true. With the invent of Big Brother and new English language syllabus courses featuring lessons on text messaging, im beginning to believe it. Are we turning into a nation of morons? What do you think? Perhaps you could set my mind at ease...

English text-messaging courses? I've heard of people accidentally using txtspeak in exams, but haven't heard of such a course. Could you provide a link?

English text-messaging courses? I've heard of people accidentally using txtspeak in exams, but haven't heard of such a course. Could you provide a link?
i'll have a look... but i saw it in the paper.

maybe youre right, but do you think there is any underlying reason why people are "dumbing-down?"

I don't think there is any one simple underlying reason as to why the populations of many countries seem to be dumbing-down. I've heard any number of things blamed - diet, education, degradation of social values, alienation, decadence, complacency... and the stifling of imagination.

Take your pick.

An enemy of mine did his A-Level English project on txt msg spk back in 2000/2001, and did rather well. Of course, back in those days, linguistic analysis of such things was original.

Now it's just people being lazy.

I know the papers moan constantly about everything in Britain becoming less intellectually-taxing, but I'm beginning to think that its true. With the invent of Big Brother and new English language syllabus courses featuring lessons on text messaging, im beginning to believe it. Are we turning into a nation of morons? What do you think? Perhaps you could set my mind at ease...

Same problem in the US. I think there is a lowering of expectations to be politically correct but there are also many more oppurtunities for the uninformed to prove their ignorance.

i'll have a look... but i saw it in the paper.

I didn't find anything about a course, but I've just been skimming through an interesting article to do with texting and e-mailing.
link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0311/p01s02-ussc.html)

Now it's just people being lazy.I think that's exactly it. Much as many modern inventions such as the mobile phone are extremely useful, they do allow their users to become lazy. I suppose that laziness then spreads to other areas in peoples' lives and ultimately to society in general.

It just seems that in a nation like ours where people receive the best education they've ever had, we have a rich and vibrant history and many of the world's foremost institutions of education. I understand that not everyone can go to unviersity or is interested in culture, but wh ydo we seem to have created a new breed of brainless yobs and young *vicky pollard- esque* girls?

It just seems that in a nation like ours where people receive the best education they've ever had, we have a rich and vibrant history and many of the world's foremost institutions of education. I understand that not everyone can go to unviersity or is interested in culture, but wh ydo we seem to have created a new breed of brainless yobs and young *vicky pollard- esque* girls? Who is Vicky Pollard?

I agree, we're growing more moronic by the year. I don't know what the solution is. Obviously fascistic police beatings would be a good solution to youth crime (maybe?), but dumbness - no idea.

Who is Vicky Pollard?

I agree, we're growing more moronic by the year. I don't know what the solution is. Obviously fascistic police beatings would be a good solution to youth crime (maybe?), but dumbness - no idea.

she's that girl off little britain who says "yeah but, no but" a lot.

I don't think that people are actually getting stupider. Less knowledgable in classical education areas, yes, which is what is meant by the dumbing-down of the BBC, but we aren't actually breeding a generation of morons.

if i spk in txt lngage u cn ndrstnd me + thts wht lngage is 4

so really, what's the problem?

When i hear Radio one "news" say "problems have arrisen in North Korea -that's a country in Asia-" I run for cover.

When i hear Radio one "news" say "problems have arrisen in North Korea -that's a country in Asia-" I run for cover.

Well, yes, point taken, but still, not exactly stupid, just assuming low knowledge.

And Radio 1 is your benchmark. Geez, what did you expect?!

The new Doctor Who series is pretty much the only thing that makes me think "Some people do know how to write good television!"

Well, yes, point taken, but still, not exactly stupid, just assuming low knowledge.

And Radio 1 is your benchmark. Geez, what did you expect?!

I expect every child to be aware of the world and know that the word Korea is associated with Asia. Okay not everyone can know that but come on...what about stirring kids minds?

Maybe i'm be idealistic here but if they just said north Korea maybe one or two people might go. "i don't know about that palce, let me find out"

If you treat people in a stupid way they will become stupid..ifm you keep doing a kids shoe lace for them they just become dependent upon you. That's the sort of person i feel we are breeding.

English text-messaging courses? I've heard of people accidentally using txtspeak in exams, but haven't heard of such a course. Could you provide a link?
I don't know why, but the word 'txtspeak' and its context just merged with the word 'newspeak' and its general context. This has probably been mentioned before, but...spooky :eek: :p

Maybe i'm be idealistic here but if they just said north Korea maybe one or two people might go. "i don't know about that palce, let me find out"

If you treat people in a stupid way they will become stupid..ifm you keep doing a kids shoe lace for them they just become dependent upon you. That's the sort of person i feel we are breeding.

Yeah, but they'd probably just go

"Norf Karria. Where da fock is dat!11!1! Fock it, its full a fockin' [insert racist term here] anyway, innit111 Fock.

I wonda if dey made da bags, fockin' yeh"



I'm feeling less tolerant today

I know the papers moan constantly about everything in Britain becoming less intellectually-taxing, but I'm beginning to think that its true. With the invent of Big Brother and new English language syllabus courses featuring lessons on text messaging, im beginning to believe it. Are we turning into a nation of morons? What do you think? Perhaps you could set my mind at ease...

Soon, you will be eligible for American statehood. :D

Soon, you will be eligible for American statehood. :D

They already read the Sun.

Of course, Germans already read Bild.

And Americans read the National Enquirer...

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

The whole world is dumbing down. It's all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy...

Its the chavs fault I say! That "Norf Karria" thing is the most accurate picture of chav mentality i have seen yet.

Good question. I asked that myself about my country.

But then, turn time 10 years back. People were just as dumb. It's just that we have more technology and knowledge now that make people look .... stoopider. :D

People are definitely less knowledgeable, I don't think anyone can argue with that. The problem stems from national curricula that make everyone learn the same little bit about the same wide range of subjects. There's also far more of a mentality now that you don't need to know things, you can always look them up online. That said, the laziness mentioned above means that although people could look things up that they don't know, they often don't bother. Finally, the education culture in Britain is now very much one of "prizes for all", so children's mistakes aren't corrected as strictly as was once the case and that results in them being perpetuated*.

*The mistakes, that is, not the children.

I know the papers moan constantly about everything in Britain becoming less intellectually-taxing, but I'm beginning to think that its true. With the invent of Big Brother and new English language syllabus courses featuring lessons on text messaging, im beginning to believe it. Are we turning into a nation of morons? What do you think? Perhaps you could set my mind at ease...


I so hate these sort of debates. People saying "We were better of in our day" etc. To these people I simply say "shut up".

The fact is that in contemporary Britain, literacy rates are higher now than at any other time since records began, university applications are rising and A level and GCSE results are, even in boys, improving constantly.
People look back on the previous eras nostalgiacally but they forget just how bad it was; hierarchical power structure, limited access universities etc.

As for television, yes there were golden programmes in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but for every Monty Python's Flying Circus and Hancock's Half Hour there was state sponsored rubbish! How many programmes can you name from these eras as opposed to 90s stuff? There is more Television now than ever. True that means there is more crap then before, but for every Big Brother, there is hard hitting and moving drama, classic comedy and documentaries revealing the truth about the world rather than the government supporting newsreels of previous generations.

I am the first member of my family to attend a university! Do I feel modern Britain is dumbed down? No! The only dumb people are those who think it is!

I have to say, if you want to see some real dumbing down, come to California. Maybe its the whole association of thinking with social alienation that's done the trick. Maybe it's all the t.v. shows with nothing to say but "party, have sex, and cause a lot of drama, because beauty and popularity, alongg with money, are the only truly important things."
While repression in extreme amounts is definately unhealthy, it does seem that the moral system, at least here, is collapsing in on itself. Rather sad, since most of the population I've met refuses to think before acting and therefor cannot set up their own moral limits based on common sense.

All I can say is, it was good to graduate highschool and get away from as many of the people I ended up wanting to strangle/cry over. Such a waste of potential! Oh well, as long as they're happy I guess... Meh..

The fact is that in contemporary Britain, literacy rates are higher now than at any other time since records began, university applications are rising and A level and GCSE results are, even in boys, improving constantly.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Rising numbers at university proves nothing except that more people are going to university. More passes at A-Level proves nothing except that more people are passing A-Level. You're looking at effects and not at causes.

Take an A-Level paper from 10 or 20 years ago and get today's pupils to sit it and I guarantee you there will be a far lower pass rate. The bar has been lowered. I work in a university, and I can assure you that people entering university today are less literate, less knowledgeable and less prepared for the experience than was the case even five years ago.

We now have a culture where 50% of people are expected to go to university, not because 50% of the workforce need a degree, but because that's the artificial target figure set by the government, so instead of having 5% or 10% of our population educated to the highest level (as used to be the case) we now have 50% educated to an okay level.

Whenever you add more people in to the university system you have to lower the standard required and the level at which you teach; the lowest common denominator must apply.

The fact is that in contemporary Britain, literacy rates are higher now than at any other time since records began, university applications are rising and A level and GCSE results are, even in boys, improving constantly.
People look back on the previous eras nostalgiacally but they forget just how bad it was; hierarchical power structure, limited access universities etc.


Did someone get some propaganda gift vouchers for Christmas, because you sure as hell bought it.

A level's and GCSE's are getting easier. Did you not see that C4 program where they proved that? It's obvious. For one thing, at A-Level, General Studies is a joke. Anyone can pass it, if they work even just a little. The results are screwed out by the government soi they look better.

And literacy rates have fallen. Remember curriculum2000, when superBlair had to try and pull out all the stops to get literacy rates back up, using the Literacy and Numeracy Hour? Well, it isn't working. They're still not improving. They're getting worse.

And University applications may be rising, but what does that prove? It proves that more people are trying to go to University. Big whoop.

The University entrance standards are falling. I know people who will only get two A-Levels, if that, who are being pushed by their school to apply to UNiversity, even though they shouldn't be going. The schools push them so ridiculous govenrment targets can be met. It's all a propaganda scam.

People are definitely less knowledgeable, I don't think anyone can argue with that. The problem stems from national curricula that make everyone learn the same little bit about the same wide range of subjects. There's also far more of a mentality now that you don't need to know things, you can always look them up online. That said, the laziness mentioned above means that although people could look things up that they don't know, they often don't bother. Finally, the education culture in Britain is now very much one of "prizes for all", so children's mistakes aren't corrected as strictly as was once the case and that results in them being perpetuated*.

*The mistakes, that is, not the children.


I believe the problem is not just with the horrendous National Curriculum, but the whole Learn it pass you course test for that month and well forget it, it's all based on coursework any way. is a good reason why we are regressing, no student is tought to remember Facts and the merging of The sciences into that horrendous integrated science. I have been called a liar at an interview (by an HR scroat 9 years my junior) because I have GCEs in Physics Chemistry Biology etc, a smug 21 yearold telling me it is GCSEs and that its impossible to get all three therefore I am a liar,

and what the hell is an A* grade, is tat like a distinction for being the top 1% or is it an A and As to Bs all the way to H, so Everybody gets 10 GCSEs, add to that you can get a GNVQ level 7 in operational Call Centre activities inbound (a helpdesk operator) and customer service which apparantly is equal to a High scoring Degree.

Englands education system has gone to the wall, and I have met some people that have come through the whole GCSE system who can think and do have a passion, but the majority are kpi worrying yesmen with no self identity or drive and a fear to be more than 2% from the accepted degree of craziness

I believe the problem is not just with the horrendous National Curriculum, but the whole Learn it pass you course test for that month and well forget it, it's all based on coursework any way.

I agree. When I did my finals at university (only 7 years ago before I'm branded a geriatric), they were precisely that, final exams; everything taught in the preceding two years was up for examination, and getting a degree rested on them. Now I have students whinging that they have an exam at the end of each module (12 weeks long) which will test them on the whole module. These exams all count towards the degree mark, so you only need to remember things for a maximum of 12 weeks.

Unfortunately, and you see this every time you go into a newsagent or switch on the TV, this country (the UK as a whole) celebrates mediocrity, so it is hard for people to stand out. We have a phobia of those who achieve, they're treated with scorn and apprehension. It's saddening.

Did someone get some propaganda gift vouchers for Christmas, because you sure as hell bought it.

A level's and GCSE's are getting easier. Did you not see that C4 program where they proved that? It's obvious. For one thing, at A-Level, General Studies is a joke. Anyone can pass it, if they work even just a little. The results are screwed out by the government soi they look better.

And literacy rates have fallen. Remember curriculum2000, when superBlair had to try and pull out all the stops to get literacy rates back up, using the Literacy and Numeracy Hour? Well, it isn't working. They're still not improving. They're getting worse.

And University applications may be rising, but what does that prove? It proves that more people are trying to go to University. Big whoop.

The University entrance standards are falling. I know people who will only get two A-Levels, if that, who are being pushed by their school to apply to UNiversity, even though they shouldn't be going. The schools push them so ridiculous govenrment targets can be met. It's all a propaganda scam.

What a load of tripe.

These facts surely cannot just be dismissed like they are by the people who believe Britain is dumbing down. In your statement then, are we to read that if pass levels fall, university applications drop etc that suddenly we are all getting smarter? Because to me that seems absurd.

On the 50% target, artificial targets should not be set? YES! Does this mean that some people who go to University will not deserve to? Yes! But there were idiots at university 100 years ago. Just those idiots had an uncle in the Ministry of Defence etc and so could get to uni. Some people get jobs that they do not deserve. Society has evolved and yes, classical education and English language are dead. But that does not mean that we are all suddenly dumber.

What a load of tripe.

These facts surely cannot just be dismissed like they are by the people who believe Britain is dumbing down. In your statement then, are we to read that if pass levels fall, university applications drop etc that suddenly we are all getting smarter? Because to me that seems absurd.

On the 50% target, artificial targets should not be set? YES! Does this mean that some people who go to University will not deserve to? Yes! But there were idiots at university 100 years ago. Just those idiots had an uncle in the Ministry of Defence etc and so could get to uni. Some people get jobs that they do not deserve.

NO, falling pass levels does not mean people are getting smarter.

If the standards were to remain the smae from year to year, and then the pass levels rose, we would conclusive evidence of smarter, or at least better educated, people. But they don't. The pass rates get lower. And more people pass. It proves nothing.

My problem with university is the sheer volume of people doing pathetic courses with no practical application. They're a waste of time, effort and money. There are a plethora more of those than ever before.

That begs the more fundamental question - what is the purpose of university? Is it learning for learning's sake, a place where the best and the brightest think abstruse thoughts and add to the sum of human knowledge. Or, is it just the next stage that you have to do after school?

I'll say it again, people coming to university are less well educated than they used to be - first year in most subjects is becoming remedial to make up for the lack in the secondary education system. Literacy in this country is dropping, and year on year pass rate increases when it's clear our schools are underfunded and when it's obvious from simple conversations that people are not as knowledgeable are, frankly, disingenuous and a betrayal to the people who are getting these marks and being told they're great when they're not. We're setting ourselves up for a fall.

That begs the more fundamental question - what is the purpose of university? Is it learning for learning's sake, a place where the best and the brightest think abstruse thoughts and add to the sum of human knowledge. Or, is it just the next stage that you have to do after school?

I'll say it again, people coming to university are less well educated than they used to be - first year in most subjects is becoming remedial to make up for the lack in the secondary education system. Literacy in this country is dropping, and year on year pass rate increases when it's clear our schools are underfunded and when it's obvious from simple conversations that people are not as knowledgeable are, frankly, disingenuous and a betrayal to the people who are getting these marks and being told they're great when they're not. We're setting ourselves up for a fall.

Damn right. Well said.

What a load of tripe.
Some people get jobs that they do not deserve. Society has evolved and yes, classical education and English language are dead. But that does not mean that we are all suddenly dumber.

in 1990 I retook my O level papers in an experiment with Liverpool Poly, (Notice not te john moores university but good old respected Liverpool Poly.) this time I sat the same tests as GCSEs from the same examining board (there where about 500 of us doing it) we all passed with a high or higher grade on GCSEs even those that had got CSEs where walking away with a now valid a-c pass at GCSE, plus getting an exam at the end of the year that only counts for 10% of your mark coursework for the rest which is then scaled for your project work is a refeckingnobulous way of generally giving out whatever grade you want

May I enquire are you doing a proper and useful course at UNI or a social science Business Admin type course (Physical science fan so always pick on the social sciences)

My problem with university is the sheer volume of people doing pathetic courses with no practical application. They're a waste of time, effort and money. There are a plethora more of those than ever before.

Like?



May I enquire are you doing a proper and useful course at UNI or a social science Business Admin type course (Physical science fan so always pick on the social sciences)

History, so no not particularly practical but a 'classical' subject.

Like?

Film studies springs to mind, as does Musicology (a real degree :rolleyes: ) and Nordic Studies or Celtic Studies.

Then there are the useful courses, like Engineering of almost any kind, that are taught at awful universities.

Film studies springs to mind, as does Musicology (a real degree :rolleyes: ) and Nordic Studies or Celtic Studies.

Then there are the useful courses, like Engineering of almost any kind, that are taught at awful universities.

Film Studies can be useful in this TV dominated age.

As for Celtic and Nordic Studies they are usually done alongside a History degree and is donef or someone hoping to specialise for example.

Put a quota on certain Uni Courses that only THE most talented and able can do

We do not need another 14000 Sociolgists, Psycologist, Colour Scientist, Business admin (you learn that on the bloody job)

We do need to promote Pure and applied Math's and sciences Engineering Medicine IT but not just word processor and spreadsheet usage, computer programming and Computer theorists,

Art History Philosophy and humanities in general yeah they are for the passionate and should be ran for those witha passion.

However this Get a degree any degree is really annoying, why should I employ someone because they have a sociology degree over someone with a pasion (because employers are going to get hit with that soon to make more people NEED to go to uni)

Film Studies can be useful in this TV dominated age.

As for Celtic and Nordic Studies they are usually done alongside a History degree and is donef or someone hoping to specialise for example.

So it's a degree telling people how to watch television. How useful. :rolleyes:

But even if it does teach you how to make good TV, there are better ways of doing it. Learning on the job, for example. Face it, it's just an excuse to watch films and get drunk for three years.

And after you specialise in Nordic Studies, what then? How do you contribute to society? How many experts in the Celts do we need every year?

Art History Philosophy and humanities in general yeah they are for the passionate and should be ran for those witha passion.

The words of a complete retard.

History, Art, Philosophy, Music, Poetry, Literature are what makes us different to animals in that they inspire our emotions. It is what makes us so brilliantly diverse. They are more than just hobbies. They define the people we are, and how we view the world!

And after you specialise in Nordic Studies, what then? How do you contribute to society? How many experts in the Celts do we need every year?

Oh dear. I had a feeling you'd go this way on "useful" degrees. I think you miss the point - you seem to want only practical degrees to be taught, I'd suggest that when we had good technical colleges aplenty and a small number of good universities, things were better. Now we have hosts of lousy universities, diverting funding from their strong areas to shore up the weaker ones they feel obliged to offer in order to seem more university-like.

However, my PhD is in Dark Age History, but by its interdisciplinary nature, it could be said to be in Nordic Celtic Studies. What do you do with it? In my case you teach, and you continue to advance our knowledge of the past and our origins through research in onomastics, archaeology and so on. Is that useful? No, arguably not, but that depends as I said before on what you think the purpose of universities is.

I'd certainly contend that all knowledge is useful and that we should always be striving to increase the sum of human knowledge. Your question about how many of us are needed to do that, however, is perfectly valid. Is human knowledge served better by 1000 adequate historians or by 100 excellent ones? I know which I think.


On the subject of philosophy, art, music etc - why on earth would you suggest that that they are mere hobbies and not to be considered as real subjects??

And after you specialise in Nordic Studies, what then? How do you contribute to society? How many experts in the Celts do we need every year?

Is it possible that people take these courses because they are actually interested in the Norse or the Celts? Not because they know it will have practical value, but because they want to learn.

I don't know, maybe I'm too young to comment on this as I won't be going to uni for a good few years yet, but I know that if I were to study that sort of thing, that is why I would do it.

The words of a complete retard.

History, Art, Philosophy, Music, Poetry, Literature are what makes us different to animals in that they inspire our emotions. It is what makes us so brilliantly diverse. They are more than just hobbies. They define the people we are, and how we view the world!

they are also interpretive and subjective to the fallicies which we place on them and although can be essential in schooling and training of the emotional and imaginitive need, is your interpretation on historical events any more valid than mine because you have a degree, if I write poetry for myself or a friend which we both enjoy does it make it a crap poem. I personally cannot see the fuss over a lot of art both modern or classical however that does not mean I do not see beauty or do not feel emotion, they are individual passions, very few people do History because they are really going to need it later they do it because they enjoy it.

Oh dear. I had a feeling you'd go this way on "useful" degrees. I think you miss the point - you seem to want only practical degrees to be taught, I'd suggest that when we had good technical colleges aplenty and a small number of good universities, things were better. Now we have hosts of lousy universities, diverting funding from their strong areas to shore up the weaker ones they feel obliged to offer in order to seem more university-like.

However, my PhD is in Dark Age History, but it's interdisciplinary in nature, so I suppose it could be said to be Celtic Studies. What do you do with it? In my case you teach, and you continue to advance our knowledge of the past and our origins through research in onomastics, archaeology and so on. Is that useful? No, arguably not, but that depends as I said before on what you think the purpose of universities is.

I'd certainly contend that all knowledge is useful and that we should always be striving to increase the sum of human knowledge. Your question about how many of us are needed to do that, however, is perfectly valid. Is human knowledge served better by 1000 adequate historians or by 100 excellent ones? I know which I think.

I'm not saying we shouldn't study the past, or any other arts type discipline, but that too many people are doing it, and too many of them are not capable of doing it well.

is your interpretation on historical events any more valid than mine because you have a degree

Yes. Simply put, yes it is. Why? Because there's more to history than knowing a load of dates. There's historical technique, understanding of sources, contextualising, knowledge of physical evidence - in short, it's a specialisation like any otheer and comes with specialist knowledge when properly studied.

if i spk in txt lngage u cn ndrstnd me + thts wht lngage is 4

You said what now? The only words I can understand are 'if', 'I', 'in' and 'me'.

Txt speak should be banned, it really should. If I can use propper spelling in text messages why on earth can't people use propper english when they have a full keyboard in front of them?

Yes. Simply put, yes it is. Why? Because there's more to history than knowing a load of dates. There's historical technique, understanding of sources, contextualising, knowledge of physical evidence - in short, it's a specialisation like any otheer and comes with specialist knowledge when properly studied.

Your talking to someone who original trained as a research BioChemist, Analysis skills are taught to any interpretive or imaginative discipline, however the ability to think with logical progression and a few Eureka moments along the way helps. I asked is your interpretation more valid the answer is no, because I have read many historical accounts of some of my field of interest (the development of modern warfare technology, a hobby) and read some really utter crap by people with teir apparant knowledge in the field is skewed by personal belief/political correctness. where as I am seeking my own answers with the knowledge and correlations that I know, so my interpretation is just as valid

Apologies - I hadn't realised we were arguing anecdotally, I was speaking in general terms. I'm sure your analytical powers are excellent. However, it remains the case that the person who studied history properly will have the tools at his or her command that the amateur often will not. It is certainly the case that the researcher will have a greater depth of knowledge and breadth of understanding in a given area of history than the man in the street, however many history books that man might have read.

i'd just like to point out that "txt" is infact text speak and "propper" is not proper English... :p
Text speak is useful... you can communicate more quickly but it does annoy me too... i s'pose it's nice to preserve the English language? :confused:
xXx

You said what now? The only words I can understand are 'if', 'I', 'in' and 'me'.

Txt speak should be banned, it really should. If I can use propper spelling in text messages why on earth can't people use propper english when they have a full keyboard in front of them?

If you can't fathom the meaning of "u", might I suggest you ask the doctors for your brain back?

"Txt speak should be banned". Oh how I laughed at your use of text speech to decry text speech. Yes I did.

Apologies - I hadn't realised we were arguing anecdotally, I was speaking in general terms. I'm sure your analytical powers are excellent. However, it remains the case that the person who studied history properly will have the tools at his or her command that the amateur often will not. It is certainly the case that the researcher will have a greater depth of knowledge and breadth of understanding in a given area of history than the man in the street, however many history books that man might have read.

No need to apologise, My argument was only related to valid interpretation, not correct conclusions.

If you can't fathom the meaning of "u", might I suggest you ask the doctors for your brain back?

"Txt speak should be banned". Oh how I laughed at your use of text speech to decry text speech. Yes I did.


“…Text-messaging or The Sun , these are perfect Orwellian ways of limiting the vocabulary and thus limiting the consciousness…” - Alan Moore

I think I read somewhere that The Sun has an official vocabulary of 5000 words and is trying to reduce that number every year. Their stated reading age is that an average seven year old can understand anything in their paper...

That sounds like newspeak to me :(


As for universities, from my experience the top Universities still offer high-quality education, while the 'lower' Universities offer remedial studies often of a quality lower than the A Level courses they're supposed to suppliment.

So yeah, as a general trend society is dumbing down, even if there are occasional exceptions.

Your talking to someone who original trained as a research BioChemist, Analysis skills are taught to any interpretive or imaginative discipline, however the ability to think with logical progression and a few Eureka moments along the way helps. I asked is your interpretation more valid the answer is no, because I have read many historical accounts of some of my field of interest (the development of modern warfare technology, a hobby) and read some really utter crap by people with teir apparant knowledge in the field is skewed by personal belief/political correctness. where as I am seeking my own answers with the knowledge and correlations that I know, so my interpretation is just as valid

You can't read very good historians - it is the duty of a historian to remain objective and preserve objectivity at all cost. But then again the field of military history (especially modern military history) is one of the more basic fields of history that is primarily concerned with the learning of facts and military movements. It does not have the depth of political, social or economic history where for every event there are a thousand causes that must be throughly and objectviely researched in order to form a full and comprehensive view.

I know the papers moan constantly about everything in Britain becoming less intellectually-taxing, but I'm beginning to think that its true. With the invent of Big Brother and new English language syllabus courses featuring lessons on text messaging, im beginning to believe it. Are we turning into a nation of morons? What do you think? Perhaps you could set my mind at ease...

Don't worry, most people have always been idiots, but as the elite minority can outsmart them, things usually turn out all right. (I'm not sure if I meant all that ironically or not...).

You can't read very good historians - it is the duty of a historian to remain objective and preserve objectivity at all cost. But then again the field of military history (especially modern military history) is one of the more basic fields of history that is primarily concerned with the learning of facts and military movements. It does not have the depth of political, social or economic history where for every event there are a thousand causes that must be throughly and objectviely researched in order to form a full and comprehensive view.

And also weighed to see which ones are more important. (Which seems to be where most of the controversy lies).

Though well said. This is one of the reasons why I find military history fairly boring and prefer social and economic history.

You can't read very good historians - it is the duty of a historian to remain objective and preserve objectivity at all cost. But then again the field of military history (especially modern military history) is one of the more basic fields of history that is primarily concerned with the learning of facts and military movements. It does not have the depth of political, social or economic history where for every event there are a thousand causes that must be throughly and objectviely researched in order to form a full and comprehensive view.

My point was to do with te dumbing down rather tan the validity of History as a valid Humanity subject, I was always told to be objective in Analysis and interpretation, both in the Sciences and in Humanities,

we are leading to a culture where what you are told is correct if given by anyone in authoity, as has always been the case, Winners write history losers are only footnotes in the topic of elevating the victor. however we also have espescially in the region of WWII that wonderful political moral quagmire of Fascism Anti Semantism and nuclear weapons as well as the formation of 2 major superpowers on opposing sides. the political and moral sanitising of thought is unforgiving to creators of all works,

it is the removal of this ability to think by making everyone believe they can think that is the downfall of not just the UK but a lot of the generic retardation of many countries, which is strange we have unprecedented access to information sources, we have more time on our hands, we should also be reaching higher ranks of intelligence, but there is no drive other tan personal satisfaction to do it, look at the job market, only ocaisionally will you see a trained specialist getting a salary that rivals a manager of the accounts department.

Why should I train to be a Physicist and possibly contribute to Controllable nuclear fusion or alternate energy sources when I can bullshit my way through a business admin course push for funds to hire an underling and mint it... no reason other than personal drive. and this is not encouraged, or even regarded highly,

I know the papers moan constantly about everything in Britain becoming less intellectually-taxing, but I'm beginning to think that its true. With the invent of Big Brother and new English language syllabus courses featuring lessons on text messaging, im beginning to believe it. Are we turning into a nation of morons? What do you think? Perhaps you could set my mind at ease...

Meh, this usually has negative consequences.

Every now and then a new poll comes out showing that only x% of under 18's know what D-Day was or such and such, like what the Reichstag fire was. With the result being that History students learn more and more about an increasing narrow range of things, to the exclusion of all else.

Yes, I admit that it is bad that many don't know basic facts of history, but focusing on the Nazis to the exclusion of all other subjects is more damaging in my opinion. Surely at school, children should learn about a diverse number of periods and if they wish to carry on History to uni, then they should begin specialising?

But I'm just bitter, I did the Nazis ever year I could remember up to finishing my A-levels, frequently retreading covered ground with the result being that I wish I could just get rid of the 30's.

Nazis, pah. Fuckers. Ruining history for generations of British school children.

we are leading to a culture where what you are told is correct if given by anyone in authoity,

Really?

Not something I have ever encountered.

Though that could just be a result of my political ideology :confused:

as has always been the case, Winners write history losers are only footnotes in the topic of elevating the victor.

This trite phrase is rattled out at nearly every oppurtunity. Though winners do right their own accounts, losers accounts are very rarely entirely forgotten.

Artifacts remain, old documents remain.

The whole thing about "only winners write history" is very damaging. It allows people like Dan Brown, as well as writers of pseudo-history books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the Templar Revelations, to makes their "theories" look semi-descent.

But Dan Brown is just another of my many pet peeves :(

Why should I train to be a Physicist and possibly contribute to Controllable nuclear fusion or alternate energy sources when I can bullshit my way through a business admin course push for funds to hire an underling and mint it... no reason other than personal drive. and this is not encouraged, or even regarded highly,

True :(

Meh, this usually has negative consequences.

Every now and then a new poll comes out showing that only x% of under 18's know what D-Day was or such and such, like what the Reichstag fire was. With the result being that History students learn more and more about an increasing narrow range of things, to the exclusion of all else.

I got to learn American history, as the great melting pot of cultures, and the invention of Democratic Freedom, the foundation and promotion of Markets, and the worlds savour in WWI&II. and of course our protector against the growing Soviet Nuclear threat, (gotta love Reagen for that)

As a pro nuclear Stalinist at the time I got on quite well with my history teacher, I spent many a time in extended study for disagreeing with him... or sorry was that 1 hours detention per day for an entire term.

British history, I did in Primary school, there where Romans vikings Normans and then the USA, I was very much disatisfied with my techings from a discipline with such a breadth of information,

I got to learn American history, as the great melting pot of cultures, and the invention of Democratic Freedom, the foundation and promotion of Markets, and the worlds savour in WWI&II. and of course our protector against the growing Soviet Nuclear threat, (gotta love Reagen for that)

I take it you are American then?

I don't mean to be offensive, but that really does seem like quite a nationalistic (or patriotic, I may be getting a wee bit hysterical in my dotage).

As a pro nuclear Stalinist at the time I got on quite well with my history teacher, I spent many a time in extended study for disagreeing with him... or sorry was that 1 hours detention per day for an entire term.

Well the fact that you were allowed to voice such an opinion is only a good thing right?

I was very much disatisfied with my techings from a discipline with such a breadth of information,

Well there is a danger of a too broad amount of topics.

Though I would have preferred to do more for both history GCSE and A-level then the Nazis (especially for GCSE, I think that is all we effectively did. We did the Russian revolution for one term but the teacher left so we we went to the fucking Nazis :(), Church History (Catholic school, nuff said) and a little bit about Henry VII. We did a couple of other things, but in no real depth.

I'm sure it is possible to learn more than three things over five years. Especially when a lot of it was just repeated what was covered the year before.

I take it you are American then?

I don't mean to be offensive, but that really does seem like quite a nationalistic (or patriotic, I may be getting a wee bit hysterical in my dotage).



Nah I am a Scouser living in Whiterose Country, that's why I got so upset about covering American history (post shaking of the imperialist shackles of England American history at that), we covered the Russian revolutions how the dirty uneducated proles by sheer weight of numbers overthrew the rightful tsarist leaders

My received education, I unluckily was the first year to receive a full 2 year GCSE course (apart from the sciences I luckily passed them the year before mmm O'levels), where I was given the wonderful chance to sit through the revision course for repatriation to the US) even the materials we where given where full of AmricaniZms but were thoro in there non emotionality and colorization of the subject matter. I had to resit my sciences but as I was doing my Btec Science at the time didn't really count as I was the Science tech.

I have to say, if you want to see some real dumbing down, come to California. Maybe its the whole association of thinking with social alienation that's done the trick. Maybe it's all the t.v. shows with nothing to say but "party, have sex, and cause a lot of drama, because beauty and popularity, alongg with money, are the only truly important things.

Yes, in California, you're not allowed to own most "assault weapons". Nor can you buy a magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition.

But, it's perfectly legal to slit your wife's throat (OJ), blow her brains out (Robert Blake), or sexually abuse young boys (MJ). As long as you're rich, you can do anything you want in California.

That was Scott Petersen's problem. He killed his wife, too. But he wasn't rich, so he got the shaft.

she's that girl off little britain who says "yeah but, no but" a lot.

I don't think that people are actually getting stupider. Less knowledgable in classical education areas, yes, which is what is meant by the dumbing-down of the BBC, but we aren't actually breeding a generation of morons.

if i spk in txt lngage u cn ndrstnd me + thts wht lngage is 4

so really, what's the problem?

so if you spoke to me in t^2 2log gage I can understand you plus thats what 2log gage equals four

so t^2(2log(gage)+2log(gage) =4

I am so glad that the abuse of language as a way of communicating ideas and thought can be bastardised in such a way so that it does not become ambiguous or vacant, that is that your thoughts have not not become not unclear. it is the steady acceptualizing and interpretatationality of the humpty-dumpty rules of linguistiulisation vocalisatory response that imagineering words to undeficeitate an answer that is in part but not in whole but contributary in some way to the so labelled retardilising or dumbing down as a whole, but at the end of the day, you know what I mean, so thats all right and if you don't you are disrespecting me.

I take it you are American then?

I don't mean to be offensive, but that really does seem like quite a nationalistic (or patriotic, I may be getting a wee bit hysterical in my dotage).



Well the fact that you were allowed to voice such an opinion is only a good thing right?



Well there is a danger of a too broad amount of topics.

Though I would have preferred to do more for both history GCSE and A-level then the Nazis (especially for GCSE, I think that is all we effectively did. We did the Russian revolution for one term but the teacher left so we we went to the fucking Nazis :(), Church History (Catholic school, nuff said) and a little bit about Henry VII. We did a couple of other things, but in no real depth.

I'm sure it is possible to learn more than three things over five years. Especially when a lot of it was just repeated what was covered the year before.

I agree about the fact that the 1930s are over-taught but that is purely because of the sheer importance of World War 2. As a medieval historian it would be farcical for me to claim that the Hundred Years War had as far-reaching consequences as the only Total War in the history of Civilisation. The problem is however, some kids grow up not knowing the importance of other events. 1/10 British kids can name a minimum of one battle from the English Civil War which, alongside causing the greatest loss of British lives in war prior to the Great War, was the birthplace for modern democratic thought, socialism, reactionism and many of the ideas produced from it were echoed in the more famous revolutions in America and France, over a hundred years later. A real tragedy I feel and something I have wrote on to my local MP.

This to me doesn't represent individuals being stupid (as the topic suggests) as they are not, but I certainly agree that the focus of individual's education is too narrowly based on passing exams and gaining employment rather than expanding one's mind. These separate objectives, after all, are not mutually exclusive.

so if you spoke to me in t^2 2log gage I can understand you plus thats what 2log gage equals four

so t^2(2log(gage)+2log(gage) =4

I am so glad that the abuse of language as a way of communicating ideas and thought can be bastardised in such a way so that it does not become ambiguous or vacant, that is that your thoughts have not not become not unclear. it is the steady acceptualizing and interpretatationality of the humpty-dumpty rules of linguistiulisation vocalisatory response that imagineering words to undeficeitate an answer that is in part but not in whole but contributary in some way to the so labelled retardilising or dumbing down as a whole, but at the end of the day, you know what I mean, so thats all right and if you don't you are disrespecting me.

I can't underestand the first part of your post, but then again I can't understand Greek yet nobody claims that isn't a language.

As for the rest: very funny. An excellent example of a good point ruined through unrestrained excess. Learn the art of subtlety.

they are also interpretive and subjective to the fallicies which we place on them and although can be essential in schooling and training of the emotional and imaginitive need, is your interpretation on historical events any more valid than mine because you have a degree,

No but doing a history dgree increases your ability to reason, to take many points of view, look at a subject in it's complexity and then turn imterpret it and express your opinion. That IMHO is an amazing skill, imagine how key that skill is businesses around the world yet so many people just look and see history as reading old books.

And before anyone says that any person could do that, since when has anyone heard a coherent arguement on talk radio or the like?

As for the rest: very funny. An excellent example of a good point ruined through unrestrained excess. Learn the art of subtlety.

Have always been as subtle as a coronal mass ejection

I know the papers moan constantly about everything in Britain becoming less intellectually-taxing, but I'm beginning to think that its true. With the invent of Big Brother and new English language syllabus courses featuring lessons on text messaging, im beginning to believe it. Are we turning into a nation of morons? What do you think? Perhaps you could set my mind at ease...

Yes, Britain is becoming dumber, just talking to family in the UK the schools are bad and getting worse, everyone is becoming lazy and obese and showbiz seems to be the only thing any1 cares about, its a totally different story here in the Republic of Ireland, every1 goes to college, gets degrees and makes loads of cash, our schools are incredible and are getting better everyday! Our average IQ is higher every year and there are too many high-tech and high-skilled companies coming here as they claim the British aren't intelligent enough to get the jobs (quote from Microsoft!). This has paid off much for us with 0% unemployment and wages several times higher than the UK's. :)