NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, what do you guys think of this? Bush is trying to get this idea passed the senate...and from what I have read the only negatives to this are, as key democrats put it, " Bush is increasing federal math and science education spending while cutting overall discretionary spending on education by trimming money in areas such as the arts, parent-resource centers and drug-free schools."...to which I give a huge :rolleyes:

Seriously...are the arts, parent-resource centers and drug free schools anywhere near as important as a population who can compete and kick ass in math and science? Does anyone think these democrats are being a little stupid about this? I think its a great idea.
---------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Saturday urged the Senate to back increased government spending on basic scientific research.


The proposal is part of Bush's initiative to boost U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace through innovation. He also wants to train thousand of new science and math teachers and extend a popular tax credit businesses can receive for investing in research and development. The total price tag over 10 years would be $136 billion.

But Bush said in his weekly radio address that his proposals are vital for America to "remain an innovative nation that competes with confidence(bolded for agreement) and would help ensure that every U.S. child has the math and science skills needed for the jobs of the future.

Bush asks Senate to raise science spending (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060708/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush)

Science is not more important than Art, and Art is not more important than Science.

They're two halfs of the same Pineapple.

Science is not more important than Art, and Art is not more important than Science.

They're two halfs of the same Pineapple.

Science is way more important than art.

Art, in my opinion is gay, and is something people can do in their free time.

Science, however, is important to everyones lives...and the wellbeing of this nation.

The assessment that the West lacks indiginous talent suitable for employment in sensitive industries, is correct.

The assessment that the West lacks indiginous talent suitable for employment in sensitive industries, is correct.

So would you say that you agree with the President on this issue...and that Science and Math is...on a national level, way more important than art and parent-resouce centers and the like?

The shrub as always will do it backwards.

Art is important!

Creativity is what leads to innovation.

Some of the best computer people I have known had Music degrees!

Art, in my opinion is gay, and is something people can do in their free time.

:eek: omgzor.

Science is way more important than art.

Art, in my opinion is gay, and is something people can do in their free time.

Science, however, is important to everyones lives...and the wellbeing of this nation.

Ah, "art is gay."

Let me guess, you're an astrophysicist or captain of industry?

The shrub as always will do it backwards.

Art is important!

Creativity is what leads to innovation.

Some of the best computer people I have known had Music degrees!

Art is for the gay/depressed/unborn mass murderer....Science means progress. You, are the one that is backwards.

Science is not more important than Art, and Art is not more important than Science.

They're two halfs of the same Pineapple.
Science saves lives and gives us neat stuff like microwave ovens, television, and nuclear warheads. What does art do that's so special? What's so great about some paint splashed on a canvas?

:eek: omgzor.

Ugh, I was about to comment but you edited your post!

:p

Science saves lives and gives us neat stuff like microwave ovens, television, and nuclear warheads. What does art do that's so special? What's so great about some paint splashed on a canvas?

Couldnt agree more, DCD.

Art, in my opinion is gay, and is something people can do in their free time.


Science can be done on your free time as well.

Innovation doesn't come from having a science degree.

Ugh, I was about to comment but you edited your post!

:p

Please still explain what's wrong with it being gay… :/ Not to say that it is, of course.

Science is way more important than art.

Art, in my opinion is gay, and is something people can do in their free time.

Science, however, is important to everyones lives...and the wellbeing of this nation.
Sciene explains things what art doesn't, and art shows what science doesn't explain.

Art lets us travel to another world without ever leaving this and sciene helps makes us understand our world.

Sciene cures us and art makes us imagine.

edit - I'm primarily referring to literature and comics/manga when I talk of art.

Ah, "art is gay."

Let me guess, you're an astrophysicist or captain of industry?

Well...I'm none of that...yet...I'm still a kid, lol.

But give it time.....my father is a biochemist so maybe it runs in the family.

which would you hire to head your pharmacutical department researching cures for Aids, Cancer and other diseases.

a Chemist?

or

a poet?

Someone told me the other day that American Schools/universities are about 1 year behind the UK's, so in effect a 17 year old from the English education could go straight to a US university. anybody know if there is any truth to this?

Science saves lives and gives us neat stuff like microwave ovens, television, and nuclear warheads. What does art do that's so special? What's so great about some paint splashed on a canvas?

The arts is what puts crap on television to make it worth watching, and visual representation is what makes those microwave dinners eye-pleasing enough for you to buy. In fact, the arts supports business of all kind through marketing, and the business of America is business.

If you're against the arts, you're anti-capitalist and anti-American. :)

So would you say that you agree with the President on this issue...and that Science and Math is...on a national level, way more important than art and parent-resouce centers and the like?
I would certainly agree with the people who have had input into the debate from its early stages.

Bush has not. The only reason his name is connected with this, or most other initiatives, is that his endorsement is at some stage required. Credit only where it is due, my friend. ;)

Science can be done on your free time as well.

Innovation doesn't come from having a science degree.

Its different. Science should be well taught and well funded. I couldnt care if art wasnt taught at all, and didnt receive any funds.

The shrub as always will do it backwards.

Art is important!

Creativity is what leads to innovation.

Some of the best computer people I have known had Music degrees!
Actually come to think of it not only was I massively active in every facet of band that I could become a member of so were a large majority of my peers in the computer area

Hmmm something to think about

which would you hire to head your pharmacutical department researching cures for Aids, Cancer and other diseases.

a Chemist?

or

a poet?

Yeah okay, so which would you hire to sing at your wedding:

Stephen J Hawking?

or

musician(s)?

Sciene explains things what art doesn't, and art shows what science doesn't explain.

Art lets us travel to another world without ever leaving this and sciene helps makes us understand our world.

Sciene cures us and art makes us imagine.

edit - I'm primarily referring to literature and comics/manga when I talk of art.

Meh...people write literature on their free time...it doesnt have to be well funded by the government. Science does as it affects every aspect of our lives.

Please still explain what's wrong with it being gay… :/ Not to say that it is, of course.

Well...not gay as in homosexual..I meant lame...whatever, you know what I meant.

Didn't it say "the arts"?

Meaning humanities, history, and social studies.

The arts is much more than just art.

And having a population who's just a bunch of math geeks who don't know the history of their own country is, in my opinion, pretty damn bad.

Simply put, the United States is not producing enough people with the skills to compete in the modern economy. For all of the whining about offshoring and foreigners taking US jobs, we seem to forget that almost all skilled industries are facing severe labor shortages and they can't find people in the US to do them! A person with the skills demanded by companies in the US will have no problem getting a job; the unemployment rate for professional, managerial, and related occupations (the largest component of the US labor market) is only 2.4%. For professional work, that rate is only 1.9%, and the unemployment rate for workers aged 25 and older is only 3.6% overall. That even includes weak sectors like manufacturing and retail.

This is a long overdue policy and one that is necessary for us to remain an economically attractive place to invest. The Democrats' argument is meaningless because in the long run investing in economic competitiveness will greatly increase tax revenue; we can far better afford funding for the arts if we're seeing our tax revenue swell due to a strong economy.

Yeah okay, so which would you hire to sing at your wedding:

Stephen J Hawking?

or

musician(s)?

Depends if it's a comedy wedding...

Liasia']Someone told me the other day that American Schools/universities are about 1 year behind the UK's, so in effect a 17 year old from the English education could go straight to a US university. anybody know if there is any truth to this?
I can believe it. I have also seen that a 15-year-old Russian or oriental kid is usually capable of commencing a Western maths or physical sciences degree.

Well...not gay as in homosexual..I meant lame...whatever, you know what I meant.

omg, how oppressive of you. :p

I would certainly agree with the people who have had input into the debate from its early stages.

Bush has not. The only reason his name is connected with this, or most other initiatives, is that his endorsement is at some stage required. Credit only where it is due, my friend. ;)

Uh, you go to such great lengths to not like the President.

Couldnt you atleast give him credit for endorsing this idea?

Yeah okay, so which would you hire to sing at your wedding:?

Weddings don't find a cure for cancer or develop the technologies that give us the money and leisure time to have elaborate weddings.

Art, in my opinion is gay, and is something people can do in their free time.

Boy, you must be one hell of a debator. "I disagree with the idea that the French Revolution succeeded, because the French Revolution was gay."

which would you hire to head your pharmacutical department researching cures for Aids, Cancer and other diseases.

a Chemist?

or

a poet?
Well, maybe a very bad poet. He could make those who are dying see death as a pleasant alternative to bad verse.

I can believe it. I have also seen that a 15-year-old Russian or oriental kid is usually capable of commencing a Western maths or physical sciences degree.

Dont know about Russian, but and East Asian or Indian, I can beleive.

Boy, you must be one hell of a debator. "I disagree with the idea that the French Revolution succeeded, because the French Revolution was gay."

Haha, I actually laughed out loud on that one.

Simply put, the United States is not producing enough people with the skills to compete in the modern economy. For all of the whining about offshoring and foreigners taking US jobs, we seem to forget that almost all skilled industries are facing severe labor shortages and they can't find people in the US to do them! A person with the skills demanded by companies in the US will have no problem getting a job; the unemployment rate for professional, managerial, and related occupations (the largest component of the US labor market) is only 2.4%. For professional work, that rate is only 1.9%, and the unemployment rate for workers aged 25 and older is only 3.6% overall. That even includes weak sectors like manufacturing and retail.

This is a long overdue policy and one that is necessary for us to remain an economically attractive place to invest. The Democrats' argument is meaningless because in the long run investing in economic competitiveness will greatly increase tax revenue; we can far better afford funding for the arts if we're seeing our tax revenue swell due to a strong economy.

Inesting will not solve much.

China had a science fair where 1.6 million kids took part.

The US had 68000.

Not everybody is cut out for math and science. We saw that in the computer labor glut.

What is wrong offshoring? It creates new jobs right?

Didn't it say "the arts"?

Meaning humanities, history, and social studies.

The arts is much more than just art.

And having a population who's just a bunch of math geeks who don't know the history of their own country is, in my opinion, pretty damn bad.

It actually said, art, parent-resource and drug free schools.

The arts is what puts crap on television to make it worth watching, and visual representation is what makes those microwave dinners eye-pleasing enough for you to buy. In fact, the arts supports business of all kind through marketing, and the business of America is business.

If you're against the arts, you're anti-capitalist and anti-American. :)
How does art put my favorite show on TV? Deadwood is driven by acting and screenwriting. Those are "humanities", not so much the visual arts.

It actually said, art, parent-resource and drug free schools.

So how actually do you think anyone is gonna get good at math and science if they're killed by drug related violence or drugged out themselves?

Science is important, yes. Math is important. Both need funding.

However, I would not hesitate for a moment to live in a nation with art and no science rather than science and no art. I can't live without my music.

Coincidentally, for those who said "Art is gay" and asked about paint on canvas, I'd like to remind you that any bit of music you've ever listened to, any painting you've ever seen, any movie you've ever watched, any play you've ever read, any poetry you've read, any nontechnical books you've ever read, and any video games you've ever played are, therefore, gay.

So if you've done any of that, I've got to say, you're being really gay right now.

Read Brave New World and 1984, listen to a symphony, and grow up.

Yeah okay, so which would you hire to sing at your wedding:

Stephen J Hawking?

or

musician(s)?
Steven J Gould. And animating his corpse would require science, or maybe voodoo.

Yeah okay, so which would you hire to sing at your wedding:

Stephen J Hawking?

or

musician(s)?
honestly...


KARAOKE Baby. :D

Science is way more important than art.

Art, in my opinion is gay, and is something people can do in their free time.

Science, however, is important to everyones lives...and the wellbeing of this nation.
I just got an image of DaVinci biting your adams apple out of your neck.

Couldnt you atleast give him credit for endorsing this idea?

Why?

His endorsement is probably more due to his poll numbers then thinking its a good idea.

He endorsed no child left behind and he didn't fund it to proper levels.

He will probably cut funding on this also.

He has to pay for his private little war.

Haha, I actually laughed out loud on that one.

In reality, the French Revolution was pretty gay, so what I said was technically accurate.

Uh, you go to such great lengths to not like the President.

Couldnt you atleast give him credit for endorsing this idea?
Nope. He signs what he is asked to sign. He speaks the words he is asked to speak. I am under no illusions that any political or business manager brings any innovation to the table. That's not their job.

I just got an image of DaVinci biting your adams apple out of your neck.

See TAI. Creative.

:D

Meh...people write literature on their free time...it doesnt have to be well funded by the government. Science does as it affects every aspect of our lives.
Science doesn't affect the way I sleep.

I sleep in a twisted kind of preztel like position because it's comfy and science doesn't affect it! :p

Science doesn't affect the way I sleep.

I sleep in a twisted kind of preztel like position because it's comfy and science doesn't affect it! :p
actually it will when your back starts giving you problems.

Weddings don't find a cure for cancer or develop the technologies that give us the money and leisure time to have elaborate weddings.

Nothing's found a cure for cancer yet, and if elaborate weddings and leisure time are worth having, why are you shitting all over it?

Am I the only one here besides Neo Leonstein who thinks arts and sciences are both part of a good education? This has sorta been the foundation of all Western education for like the last thousand years or so (if not more).

How does art put my favorite show on TV? Deadwood is driven by acting and screenwriting. Those are "humanities", not so much the visual arts.

It actually said, art, parent-resource and drug free schools.

The article didn't actually specify visual arts or painting. It said,

trimming money in areas such as the arts, parent-resource centers and drug-free schools

So how actually do you think anyone is gonna get good at math and science if they're killed by drug related violence or drugged out themselves?

Thats just lame.

If your the type of person that just wants to fuck yourself up on drugs all day, your not gonna get into math and science and contribute to soceity no matter how much funding it has. If your killed by drug related violence?

Well that has to do with police funding, doesnt it.

Inesting will not solve much.China had a science fair where 1.6 million kids took part. The US had 68000.

That's not good at all; the US has to make up what it lacks in numbers with quality workers, but that quality will steadily decline if we don't encourage kids to get in to these fields. There's enough demand for these professionals in the US and around the world, but we're not going to keep our industry growing if we don't make the US an attractive place to invest and hire.

Also, a poorly educated workforce is undesirable because they end up voting for incompetent politicians who make the investment climate unattractive with idiotic and ideologically-drive laws...

Not everybody is cut out for math and science. We saw that in the computer labor glut. What is wrong offshoring? It creates new jobs right?

Not really. It saves companies money that enables them to invest more and grow their company faster, and that might have an effect on employment albeit a marginal one. It's good for the financial services industry due to the boost most stocks get from strong profit growth, however.

It's not a bottomless pit, either; outsourcing is simply too expensive for most companies, especially the small businesses that drive employment growth in the first place. Even so, the total number of jobs "lost" to outsourcing is not that big a component of the US labor market and has been slowing down since the job recovery began in 2004. (it's a biased term, since the US "takes" jobs from Europe and Japan just like India and China do from us) .

Art without science fails. Science without art fails.
Art without a mode to be produced, distributed, and appreciated has no purpose, as the purpose of art is to impact the viewer.
Science without art has no innovation. Look at Japan, a nation that beats the US hands-down as far as science goes, but wholly lacks creativity and innovation. Where are Japanese schools looking to figure out how to gain creativity and innovation? The United States school system.

Lets look at the field of robotics and prosthetics. What is one of the largest and most important researchers in this field? The Walt Disney Company. Ever since their development of robotics under the name of animatronics, produced for art purposes, they have been leading researchers in the field of robotics, and have collabortated with many hospitals to advance prosthetics.


I cannot judge Bush's proposal, as the article doesn't actually say what he plans to do and how he plans to do it. I can say that if Bush gave a damn about education, he would repeal NCLB.

Cutting spending from one part of education is cutting money from all of education. Rather than getting federal money for liberal arts classes, school districts are required to fund them themselves. It hurts the entire system to have funding removed.

Thats just lame.

If your the type of person that just wants to fuck yourself up on drugs all day, your not gonna get into math and science and contribute to soceity no matter how much funding it has. If your killed by drug related violence?

Well that has to do with police funding, doesnt it.

Apparently you see no connection with drug related violence in schools, and the presence of drugs in schools?

Not surprising if you think "thats gay" or "thats lame" is a good argument. The arts includes debate, and frankly, your debating skillz r teh sux0rz.

Nothing's found a cure for cancer yet, and if elaborate weddings and leisure time are worth having, why are you shitting all over it?

I'm not. However, if we want the kind of living standard that allows us to have these things we have to first develop a strong economic base to support it.

Am I the only one here besides Neo Leonstein who thinks arts and sciences are both part of a good education? This has sorta been the foundation of all Western education for like the last thousand years or so (if not more).

They are, but we can provide them a lot better if we make an economic investment first. The boost to tax revenue and economic growth from increasing the quality of our workforce will enable us to provide top-notch funding for the arts and humanities rather than have to eliminate them 20 or 30 years down the line because of a stagnant economy, soaring entitlement costs, and falling tax revenue.

Science is way more important than art.

Art, in my opinion is gay, and is something people can do in their free time.

Science, however, is important to everyones lives...and the wellbeing of this nation.

"The Arts" refers to writing, drama, cooking, film, 3D design, fashion, music of all sorts, comedy, and finally what you seem to think of as the only art, painting/drawing. There is much more, but I don't want to list it all because it would take too long.

Bush and whatever and whomever is behind him, simply doesn't get it with this. If you're not getting an all around good education, it doesn't help to cut some programs to fund others.

And isn't it Republicans who usually get mad at Democrats for throwing money at problems?

This is utterly ridiculous. Yes, schools need more funding. But more funding does not necessarily equate with more learning. Any moron can go through an American public school and pass, if not excell in a few classes (Good at science and math, not so good at reading/writing, or vice-versa), with a little time and effort put in. It's not exactly hard to get through the public school system. And I've never once seen a first-level (meaning not a Painting II, or Honors Chorus, etc.) ever lower someone's grade due to an inability to be successful at the specific art. It's the effort that counts because being involved in art is about using your brain differently, to thinking differently.

Yes, let's cut back art programs so that those students who do not excell in some classes, but do fabulously in art-related classes, end up deprived of a creative outlet. Creativity is not something that is just done untrained. There must be some sort of formal teaching done. When you go to an art school, I'm fairly positive you need to submit an art portfolio. Guess where people get these portfolios? From the work they've done after they've been taught some basic skills in high school.

Silly me, I thought that was high school was for. To teach you new things and prepare you for a higher learning.

It doesn't matter how much money you pump into science and math. Some kids will just not get it. They might be able to do the work and pass, or even do well in a science or math class with enough hard work put into it, but it doesn't mean that it will ever come easily to the student or that it will be anything that they will ever do without it being absolutely necessary.

Some kids are more mathematically and scientifically inclined, and some are more art and other creative outlets inclined. It's a fact and I don't see how cutting back on art can ever be a good thing.

Not to mention no one's even saying anything about the cutting back on parent involvement and drug-free schools. Drugs in school are already bad enough. Plenty of kids already are doing drugs in school and not being caught. Why should we make it easier for them?

:( sigh

I'm not. However, if we want the kind of living standard that allows us to have these things we have to first develop a strong economic base to support it.


...so you think the answer is cutting education funding?

What about that billions-of-dollars-a-day invasion of Iraq thing?

Frankly, we HAVE a strong economic base, but both Democrats and Republicans are pissing it all away. This stupid bill won't change that. It's election year, and that's why this bill is here.


They are, but we can provide them a lot better if we make an economic investment first. The boost to tax revenue and economic growth from increasing the quality of our workforce will enable us to provide top-notch funding for the arts and humanities rather than have to eliminate them 20 or 30 years down the line because of a stagnant economy, soaring entitlement costs, and falling tax revenue.

All this assumes that arts are irrelevant to the economic health of the nation. Very false assumption, given that our economy is so heavily service based and that entertainment industries are still a major, major export.

by trimming money in areas such as the arts, parent-resource centers and drug-free schools.
The arts is not just painting, sculpting, etc. The arts covers just about everything that is not directly science, technology, and math. This can be, and is, everything from band, drawing, English, foreign languages, humanities, history, etc. "The arts" is a shortened form of "the liberal arts" which does include everything that isn't science and math.

Bush and whatever and whomever is behind him, simply doesn't get it with this. If you're not getting an all around good education, it doesn't help to cut some programs to fund others.

And isn't it Republicans who usually get mad at Democrats for throwing money at problems?

Until we see the final product, it's simply lipservice.

As to your other point, yes.

It's funny to listen to the Republican's choice of words.

They allocate funds to the military and they throw money at education.

Until we see the final product, it's simply lipservice.

As to your other point, yes.

It's funny to listen to the Republican's choice of words.

They allocate funds to the military and they throw money at education.
I don't really want to see a final product where the arts get funding cuts to feed other programs.

I don't really want to see a final product where the arts get funding cuts to feed other programs.

It will probably fail. I remember one college who cut the track and field team (they produced olympic athletes) and 3 female sports to give more money to the football team.

The program didn't produce anything and quickly lost money when the team started loosing(the dipshit president didn't notice the most of the first string was graduating).

So while his "No Special Ed student left behind" law is beginning to show how much it sucks he's planning a "All Special Ed students will learn Division and Biology?"

That idiot doesn't know how the real world works.
(And before you get mad, I know these sort of people who can't learn to read and stuff and I think it would be better to teach them how to live (Or do windows or something so they can have a JOB in the future) then to waste year after year trying to teach them to read.)

It will probably fail. I remember one college who cut the track and field team (they produced olympic athletes) and 3 female sports to give more money to the football team.

The program didn't produce anything and quickly lost money when the team started loosing(the dipshit president didn't notice the most of the first string was graduating).
I guess we can count on Bush's track record.

Without saying it's right or wrong, what I find amusing is that the same party that is advocating FEDERAL educational standards to apply state wide are the same party that screams "OMG states rights!" on topics like gay marriage....or abortion...or gun control

It actually said, art, parent-resource and drug free schools.

Erm, no, it didn't.

Some Democrats have expressed concern that Bush is increasing federal math and science education spending while cutting overall discretionary spending on education by trimming money in areas such as the arts, parent-resource centers and drug-free schools.

Way to check your facts there...

As for me, I think this proposal is ridiculous. Cutting funding for one vital part of people's education to pay for another vital part of people's education is inane. It's like cutting funding for water to pay for food.

If you cut in one vital part to move the money to another vital part the result will be that the first part loses a lot while the second gains less since that part will need time to build up. If Bush really had wanted to do something he could have put more money into education instead of giving the rich yet another tax cut.

The thing, people, that it's been proven that teaching art improves a person's ability to do math and science. Music, for example, tends to build a oerson's ability to instinctively grasp math. Painting and sculture improves the ability to grasp spatial relationships. The more of a person's brain that is engaged in learning, the more powerful the brain, and the arts "work out" areas of the brain that stark instruction in science in math don't touch.

People are also "built" to learn better by play than by rote learning. Buy a book on improvisational acting/comedy. Perform some of ther excercises and just feel how it sharpens the mind. You learn to react faster, more imaginatively and with more mental agility.

Building up math and science in schools while taking away from art would be like playing a sport without working out and eating well.

Guys guys GUYS!

Art and science isn't really all that far apart

just look at the historical 'Leo' Da Vinci (not the dreadful book).

He was an artist AND a scientist - hes considered great as both.

He painted the Last Supper and designed all manners of machines we wouldn't build until this century.

Guys guys GUYS!

Art and science isn't really all that far apart.
Met many science and arts students? :p

Met many science and arts students? :p
I know some people who make Art into Science... and vice versa....


do they count? :p

2 important points I think people are missing:

1) The article said he was throwing funds at training "1000s" of math and science teachers. This could be as little as a one day camp for 1001 teachers. More important is the second half, saying he is going to give a huge tax break to corporations for "research and development". This is a tax break for corporations disguised as an education bill.

2) Someone mentioned there are no people here to fill "skilled" jobs. Assuming this is true, shouldn't it be the FUCKING COMPANY'S job to train their employees, and not the government?

Corporations need to pay up for all the capital they suck out of this country.

In my opinion, all fields of education except athletics should receive MASSIVE boosts in funding (paid for with - *gasp* - higher taxes or - *gasp* - cuts in some military programs), and No Child Left Behind should be replaced with a system that rewards the best and brightest in our schools in much the same way that athletics programs reward the best athletes.

That said, if I was forced to choose a part of education to give additional funds to at the cost of funding elsewhere, I would give the funds to science with the hopes of clearing up some common misperceptions about the scientific mindset and scientific theories. (For example, even at my very math- and science-oriented school, I know people who deny evolution.)

Then again, asking the populace to rethink their common misperceptions about science may be asking too much.

Guys guys GUYS!

Art and science isn't really all that far apart

just look at the historical 'Leo' Da Vinci (not the dreadful book).

He was an artist AND a scientist - hes considered great as both.

He painted the Last Supper and designed all manners of machines we wouldn't build until this century.

Einstein played the violin.

Science is not more important than Art, and Art is not more important than Science.

Tell that to a cancer patient.

Science saves lives and gives us neat stuff like microwave ovens, television, and nuclear warheads. What does art do that's so special? What's so great about some paint splashed on a canvas?
+1

Tell that to a cancer patient.
Tell that to an art student who has cancer.

Tell that to an art student who has cancer.

You're kidding right?

You think an artist would rather die of cancer than have to support there own hobby?

actually it will when your back starts giving you problems.
I don't need science to fix that. I got my own personal backmassager; nature's perfect one, a cat! Or, if she's cranky, my boyfriend does the trick. :p

Tell that to a cancer patient.

Guess all those artists, actors, muscians, etc. should stop raising money for cancer research.

You're kidding right?

You think an artist would rather die of cancer than have to support there own hobby?
I'm saying that I don't think an art student would want to know that funding was cut for his lifes work which was to be placed in an ineffectual program that wouldn't impact his health or treatment at all.

I'm saying that I don't think an art student would want to know that funding was cut for his lifes work which was to be placed in an ineffectual program that wouldn't impact his health or treatment at all.

I don't place an artists' feelings over a dieing mans' liver.

Also why is it an ineffectual program?

Guess all those artists, actors, muscians, etc. should stop raising money for cancer research.

I guess all those doctors will have to stop treating musicans.

This is silly.

I don't place an artists' feelings over a dieing mans' liver.

Also why is it an ineffectual program?
I'm not going to argue this with you for a few reasons.
1. I'm obviously not going to change your mind.
2. I don't have time, have to get back to work.
3. It will probably fail anyway.
4. I can't give you an importance of the arts lecture that will do the topic any justice.
5. If it came to saving a dying man's liver and saving somebody's feelings, I too, would choose saving the liver.
6. It seems I have more than a few reasons not to argue with you.

I'm not going to argue this with you for a few reasons.
1. I'm obviously not going to change your mind.
2. I don't have time, have to get back to work.
3. It will probably fail anyway.
4. I can't give you an importance of the arts lecture that will do the topic any justice.
5. If it came to saving a dying man's liver and saving somebody's feelings, I too, would choose saving the liver.
6. It seems I have more than a few reasons not to argue with you.


Love you, baby.

You're kidding right?

You think an artist would rather die of cancer than have to support there own hobby?
um...if they are a professional artist, then it would be slightly more than a "hobby"

not to mention, art groups tend to give huge sums to cancer research.
Also not to mention, there is a very good reason the US school system works under Deweys philosophy of "Educate the whole child". Knowledge in one field enhances knowledge in other fields.
Again, not to mention, art is not mutually exclusive with science. They rely on eachother.
and yet again, not to mention, you continue to ignore that the article is not about "art" but about "the arts". There is a huge difference.

As if giving piles of cash to high school art classes would increase the standard of art in the U.S. by even one jot. I remember Art class in school. It served to totally demoralize any hope I ever had of drawing/painting/expressing creativity by surrounding me with bitter failed artists whose only love was crushing the spark of youth. i.e. The common Art teacher.

Let school kids study art in their own time. They will. It's fun. If they work hard, kick ass and have talent they'll get into Art school. There'll still be plenty of jobs and money for them cause as a culture we like pretty pictures. Just get it out of high school. The crushing rules and regularity of the schoolroom do nothing for Art and never will.

What they do help is the teaching of the scientific method. Not necessarily a love of science (that too takes work in your own time, brains, and true, deep, born-with-it talent just like Art) but the teaching of empyricism, math and the principles of observation and experimentation. They can be taught in the classroom and they do benefit from piles of extra cash. So give it to them. Art's handled itself fine since civilization began. It's not about to dissapear. Science? We have to work to keep that.

Art, in my opinion is gay, and is something people can do in their free time.
You know, if you'd paid attention in those artsy classes, perhaps you could think of a better way to describe art than "gay".

The arts and sciences are both very important. They both make our lives better, science may make it easier to live, but art makes it more worthwhile. They also compliment each other, learning to play the piano helps develop mathematical skills, learning about geometry can help one's ability to draw. Developing one's creativity can aid in problem solving later on.

Furthermore, as much as I hate to admit it since I hated the class so much in highschool, english classes are really quite useful later on. You can't be a proper scientist if you're completely incapable of expressing yourself in the written word so that others can understand you.

Science is way more important than art.

Art, in my opinion is gay, and is something people can do in their free time.

Science, however, is important to everyones lives...and the wellbeing of this nation.
Seeing as you have an Adolf Hitler quote in your sig, I just thought I would point out that he was also a painter :-/

Studying the arts is essential to a well rounded education. It teaches critical thinking, innovation, spatial orientation, helps the brain absorb information, aids mathematical ability (listening to and playing music) and various other essential life skills. English is an "arts" subject, so reading and writing. Perhaps you don't think this is as important as basic maths, but you'd be wrong.

Simply increasing funding to maths and science doesn't guarantee peaking the interest of enough students to fill the gaps in the job market. I agree that it is a corporate tax cut in disguise, Bush does not care about the education system. Perhaps it is a small piece of revenge since he never learned language skills himself.

It's foolish to ignore the contribution to the economy made by the arts. Advertising, marketing, PR, journalism, graphic design, computer games, film and TV industries, all of these depend on employees with artistc skills. Then there is the incredibly high earnings of those successfull in their artistc careers, they pay taxes, contribute to charities and raise awareness for various global issues, all of these things important for our societies.

Oh, but I should add that the state of scientific literacy in the U.S. is appalling, although Canada is close to being as bad, at least our government spending for scientific development is deceided by scientists, not congressmen. So an increase to science education is always awesome.

Math and science are more important than the arts. Math and Science lead to good careers, arts lead to good hobbies. There is nothing wrong with those hobbies but I think that it is important to have an education that is actually useful for the job market and the only bachelor's degree that I have seen to have an average starting salary of 50,000 is an engineering degree which is super math and science. If you want to study the arts then go grab a book, if you want to study the sciences it ain't that easy, you need a skilled teacher. The number of people that successfully teach themselves calculus is rather small compared to those who teach themselves US history, or painting.

um...if they are a professional artist, then it would be slightly more than a "hobby"

Why would a professional artist require government subsidies?

not to mention, art groups tend to give huge sums to cancer research.

I thought you wanted to subsidize the arts.

Why do they need subsidies if they are able to give huge sums of money to cancer research?


Also not to mention, there is a very good reason the US school system works under Deweys philosophy of "Educate the whole child".

I prefer the Dewey decimal system.



Knowledge in one field enhances knowledge in other fields.
Again, not to mention, art is not mutually exclusive with science. They rely on eachother.
and yet again, not to mention, you continue to ignore that the article is not about "art" but about "the arts". There is a huge difference.

I'm not ignoring anything, just pointing out science is more important than the arts.

Math and science are more important than the arts. Math and Science lead to good careers, arts lead to good hobbies. There is nothing wrong with those hobbies but I think that it is important to have an education that is actually useful for the job market and the only bachelor's degree that I have seen to have an average starting salary of 50,000 is an engineering degree which is super math and science. If you want to study the arts then go grab a book, if you want to study the sciences it ain't that easy, you need a skilled teacher. The number of people that successfully teach themselves calculus is rather small compared to those who teach themselves US history, or painting.
If only math and science were offered when I went to high school, I'd have dropped the fuck out.

If only math and science were offered when I went to high school, I'd have dropped the fuck out.
Nobody is proposing that we eliminate the arts, however, in terms of our economic needs math and science are more important. If you want to study more of the arts then grab a book by a great author. It is that easy! One of the major purposes of our school system in this modern age is employment though and our math people cannot learn their math very well without a teacher.

Why would a professional artist require government subsidies?
...who said anything about subsidies? This is an article about education...


I thought you wanted to subsidize the arts. Please, do tell, where did I say I support subsidies to the arts? I support education including the arts. My stance on art subsidies is irrelevant, and as such, I haven't stated my position there.

Why do they need subsidies if they are able to give huge sums of money to cancer research?...again. Where are you getting this point of subsidies?




I prefer the Dewey decimal system.same exact guy. And he is the basis of our education system. Not to mention Gardners theories of multiple intelligences and the research stemming from that supports the idea of "Educate the whole child".





I'm not ignoring anything, just pointing out science is more important than the arts.so being able to read is less important than being able to do calculus? If you can read, you can teach yourself literally anything, given the effort to do so. And yes, English is part of "the arts"

so being able to read is less important than being able to do calculus? If you can read, you can teach yourself literally anything, given the effort to do so. And yes, English is part of "the arts"
One thing is that children are given reading for their entire schooling. I think that we can safely assume that most people know how to read and that they will continue to know even if cuts are made into the arts. The thing is that it is more difficult for one to learn calculus than to learn the arts. Really, what we need right now is more math to enhance our knowledge of the arts rather than the converse. I can easily read my way past The Prince by Machiavelli, and The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, but how many people have the training to get past this: dx/dt = -9.81(t) + 5 = v or even lim h->0 f(x+h) - f(x)/h? I know I can read but I still had some difficulty with those concepts.

I can easily read my way past The Prince by Machiavelli, and The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, but how many people have the training to get past this?---> dx/dt = -9.81(t) + 5 = v or even lim h->0 f(x+h) - f(x)/h

Strangely, I doubt a diplomat or a politician needs to know that formula, but a deep understanding of political theorists would be more applicable, don't you?

Strangely, I doubt a diplomat or a politician needs to know that formula, but a deep understanding of political theorists would be more applicable, don't you?
Well, those ideas are important to concepts such as economics, business, of course plain old math and science. Not only that but dedication to learning such can improve logical abilities. Few subjects are better for logic than mathematics or science. The point I am trying to make is not that everyone needs to know more math but rather that math is more esoteric than the arts and therefore needs more effort in order to understand and appreciate fully. As well, one's need for a better understanding of political theorists can be satisfied by going to the library and checking out a book on political theory or buying it even. I never read "The Communist Manifesto" in school, I read it on my own. However, I would not be nearly as capable of digesting a book on linear algebra based on my own effort.

The point I am trying to make is not that everyone needs to know more math but rather that math is more esoteric than the arts and therefore needs more effort in order to understand and appreciate fully.

So what if Maths is more esoteric? People get on in their day to day lives just fine without a deeper understanding of it, doesn't bother them.

One thing is that children are given reading for their entire schooling. I think that we can safely assume that most people know how to read and that they will continue to know even if cuts are made into the arts. The thing is that it is more difficult for one to learn calculus than to learn the arts. Really, what we need right now is more math to enhance our knowledge of the arts rather than the converse. I can easily read my way past The Prince by Machiavelli, and The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, but how many people have the training to get past this: dx/dt = -9.81(t) + 5 = v or even lim h->0 f(x+h) - f(x)/h? I know I can read but I still had some difficulty with those concepts.
comparing the reading done in first grade to the reading done senior year, along with the comprehension that goes along with it would be the same as comparing 1+1=2 to dx/dt = -9.81(t) + 5 = v. Students get both math and English right from the beginning (the first two things taught are the Alphabet and counting).

Is it difficult to teach yourself high level math? yes. Is it difficult to teach yourself high level English? yes. Math can only truly help you with math. High level reading and comprehension can help you with nearly anything.

Additionally, English will teach you logical reasoning, which can then be applied to mathematics and science. After all, the Scientific method is directly rooted in logic. Concepts of how objects occupy space, such as with sculpture, helps with physics. Aesthetics can help with math. knowledge of physical motion, from gym class to dance class, helps with both physics and some maths. And the creativity gained from the liberal arts will push creativity in the sciences, which is one place where the US is still highly competative.

First of all, I don't trust Bush on anything having to do with education. When I was a 7-month fetus I could probably speak more clearly than him and was getting higher grades. Also, Bush can't claim to be advocating science, because all of it goes against his views (he has managed to contradict almost every single scientific discipline in existence, from ID to global warming)

I'm sorry, but you can't fix education from the national level. If you worked on problems like poverty and child abuse and neglect, then you'd see some results. There are thousands and thousands of brilliant kids in this country that never get a good education because they live in poor areas where the schools are bad, or their parents are shitheads, or they just don't have enough money to buy books to read (reading books is the best way to get smart there is).

Math and science is all well and good; they are my favorite subjects. And everyone needs to have a good understanding of science and statistics so that people like Bush can't lie to us so easily. But increasing funding and raising standards does nothing. A child's quality of education is determined primarily their fellow students, their teachers, their parents, and themselves. Obviously, if the school is drastically underfunded, that is also a problem, but that isn't an issue that will be solved by Bush's proposal.

Essentially, he is interested in the economy. If he were interested in education, he wouldn't be taking the money from other programs. As for the arts, they are at least as important as other subjects in school, because though they may not earn you as much money, they certainly contribute more to your development as a person.

EDIT: I want to tack on one more thing.
Additionally, English will teach you logical reasoning, which can then be applied to mathematics and science. After all, the Scientific method is directly rooted in logic. Concepts of how objects occupy space, such as with sculpture, helps with physics. Aesthetics can help with math. knowledge of physical motion, from gym class to dance class, helps with both physics and some maths. And the creativity gained from the liberal arts will push creativity in the sciences, which is one place where the US is still highly competative.
That is very well said. My physics teacher agrees with you wholeheartedly, too. And he's not just some kook, he got voted the best science teacher in the state of Oregon. I myself have learned more useful things from reading books than from almost any other source. If you are into reading, you can easily learn all the history you want, without the pointless boredom of textbooks. Textbooks focus on the things that are supposed to be important, and never spend long at all on one topic. Reading a book comparing the military tactics of Sparta and Rome will teach you far more than a book that is a general overview of the history of the Roman Empire.

So what if Maths is more esoteric? People get on in their day to day lives just fine without a deeper understanding of it, doesn't bother them.
Many people go about their daily lives without a deeper understanding of the arts. What is your point? My point is that math and science contribute significantly to our economy and our quality of life and their esoteric nature requires that they be taught by capable teachers.

Well, those ideas are important to concepts such as economics, business, of course plain old math and science. Not only that but dedication to learning such can improve logical abilities. Few subjects are better for logic than mathematics or science. The point I am trying to make is not that everyone needs to know more math but rather that math is more esoteric than the arts and therefore needs more effort in order to understand and appreciate fully.
While it may be more esoteric, it is also far more concrete. I solve an equation...lets say 2+4. I get 8. That answer is wrong, and it can easily be expressed why it is wrong with a simple drawing of ??+????=??????

On the other hand, I can take a book, read it, love it, write a 30 page analysis of everything from writing style to symbolism to implications, and have someone look at it and rip it to shreds because they didn't like the book. I'd say both need a high level of effor to understand and appreciate fully.

Both can be studied on a students free time. But the basics must be taught to all students.

Seeing as you have an Adolf Hitler quote in your sig, I just thought I would point out that he was also a painter :-/

Yes, I know that. I think everyone in the world knows that.

As for the arts, they are at least as important as other subjects in school, because though they may not earn you as much money, they certainly contribute more to your development as a person.

As stated numerous times, "the arts" does not mean ART. "The Arts" is a catch all term that refers to art, literature, english, philosophy, social sciences and politicial theory.

Unless you mean to presume lawyers don't make much money...

My point is that math and science contribute significantly to our economy and our quality of life
And history as well as political theory doesn't?

and their esoteric nature requires that they be taught by capable teachers.

I agree, but then again I would go so far as to say all subjects should be taught be capable teachers- not merely Maths.

Eh... Screw math and science. We aren't fucking robots, we need art, the social sciences, and litterature as much as numbers and missiles. We already put too much emphasis into sciences in High Schools. Music programs and social sciences get screwed over because people just have to go take chemistry to practice blowing shit up. :rolleyes:

We need an education system that lets people choose their own fucking path. I don't care about anything but a rudimentary understanding of science and math. I shouldn't have to beat my head against a wall doing something I hate. The same goes for someone who thinks litterature is a useless course. Spending should be alocated around where students take courses.

This descision screws me over something awful, since I will now receive significantly less money from the schools (being more into history, litterature, and music) then someone who spends their time in a physics classroom. Frankly, that sucks big time.

That is very well said. My physics teacher agrees with you wholeheartedly, too. And he's not just some kook, he got voted the best science teacher in the state of Oregon. I myself have learned more useful things from reading books than from almost any other source. If you are into reading, you can easily learn all the history you want, without the pointless boredom of textbooks. Textbooks focus on the things that are supposed to be important, and never spend long at all on one topic. Reading a book comparing the military tactics of Sparta and Rome will teach you far more than a book that is a general overview of the history of the Roman Empire.
Congrats on having such a great teacher. The way I see it, to continue this idea of Rome, is that school should teach everyone the general overview of the history of the Roman Empire. That would be equivalent to teaching a good base of native language (English here in the states), other language, history, science, math, arts (ie, painting, sculpture, music, etc), and physical education/health. Those with further interests can then look into the "military tactics of Sparta and Rome", which would be like going onto higher education for math or biology or English, or taking out a book on political theory, etc.

comparing the reading done in first grade to the reading done senior year, along with the comprehension that goes along with it would be the same as comparing 1+1=2 to dx/dt = -9.81(t) + 5 = v. Students get both math and English right from the beginning (the first two things taught are the Alphabet and counting).

Is it difficult to teach yourself high level math? yes. Is it difficult to teach yourself high level English? yes. Math can only truly help you with math. High level reading and comprehension can help you with nearly anything.

Additionally, English will teach you logical reasoning, which can then be applied to mathematics and science. After all, the Scientific method is directly rooted in logic. Concepts of how objects occupy space, such as with sculpture, helps with physics. Aesthetics can help with math. knowledge of physical motion, from gym class to dance class, helps with both physics and some maths. And the creativity gained from the liberal arts will push creativity in the sciences, which is one place where the US is still highly competative.
Please, they are not comparable, a 1st grader can easily have the reading comprehension of a 6th grader without much effort however, for them to have the math comprehension of a 6th grader requires outside help. The fact that you can compare them as such shows how limited your mathematical background truly is, I have a background in both and I can tell you that the math tends to be harder.

It is less difficult to teach yourself high level English, all you do is read the books and comprehend them. Even then most of the highest level of English does not lead to much unless you are a novelist and most English experts aren't. Trust me, learning about Gaussian surfaces is more than an act of English.

Not really, in fact, all you are talking about is philosophy which is not taught at most schools. My logical faculties have benefitted very little from English compared to Science and I have taken more than most people are required to. Also, I don't think that most of the things that you are describing as taught by liberal arts are really that applicable to math and science(the study of beauty and mathematics have little in common for one). Knowing percentages and statistics is important information compared to knowing aesthetics or the study of beauty. Creativity is nice and Americans have it, however, people will be creative no matter what as creative expression exists even within the bonds of friendship after all the wisecracks made probably do more for creativity than any english teacher. The liberal arts will not contribute so significantly to creativity as to make the same impact as the same spending in math and science promotion.

Nobody is proposing that we eliminate the arts, however, in terms of our economic needs math and science are more important. If you want to study more of the arts then grab a book by a great author. It is that easy! One of the major purposes of our school system in this modern age is employment though and our math people cannot learn their math very well without a teacher.
It's really not that easy at all.

I thought I'd make a point about how biased the system already is:

My school offers science out the ass. From the 3 core sciences (Bio, Chem, Math) to forensics science, environmental science, horticulture, marine biology, electronics, computer science, other computer courses, and allows for students to do independant study with a teacher on a project of their choice. There are math courses for ever step, and half-step in grades, and a couple extras.

Conversely, the social studies offer World history, American History, American Government, European history, and International Relations...

Disparity much?

I thought I'd make a point about how biased the system already is:

My school offers science out the ass. From the 3 core sciences (Bio, Chem, Math) to forensics science, environmental science, horticulture, marine biology, electronics, computer science, other computer courses, and allows for students to do independant study with a teacher on a project of their choice. There are math courses for ever step, and half-step in grades, and a couple extras.

Conversely, the social studies offer World history, American History, American Government, European history, and International Relations...

Disparity much?
It appears that an older and wiser someone knows what's good for you.

It's really not that easy at all.
That's right, we need an art teacher to continually re-inforce our flagging self-esteem. And nudes, we need nudes.

It appears that an older and wiser someone knows what's good for you.
Shame we have this thing called a 'brain', which allows us to think for ourselves.

Shame we have this thing called a 'brain', which allows us to think for ourselves.
Which, fortunately, someone who is older and wiser fills with the proper information and directs in the proper path. Then, when you really do have the need, you can reason your way to a decent decision.

Which, fortunately, someone who is older and wiser fills with the proper information and directs in the proper path. Then, when you really do have the need, you can reason your way to a decent decision.

Because math and science is always the proper path?

Nonsense, sheer and utter bull. I am probably better at math and science than the average, however it is not my area. My particular knowledge falls within "the arts" that you particularly disparage. Should I abandon that to do something that I am not nearly as good at?

Because math and science is always the proper path?

Nonsense, sheer and utter bull. I am probably better at math and science than the average, however it is not my area. My particular knowledge falls within "the arts" that you particularly disparage. Should I abandon that to do something that I am not nearly as good at?
Not in themselves, but what's taught and understood in the compulsory years isn't particularly hard, either. Most of you wouldn't take up those courses, if you weren't required to. Hence the need for someone older and wiser to force it down those little 'know-it-all' throats.

Please, they are not comparable, a 1st grader can easily have the reading comprehension of a 6th grader without much effort however, for them to have the math comprehension of a 6th grader requires outside help. The fact that you can compare them as such shows how limited your mathematical background truly is, I have a background in both and I can tell you that the math tends to be harder.Right. All honors student, graduated top of my class, and attend a university that ranks in the top 100 universities in the world. Thanks, I have a very strong background in both English and math, up through calc, stats, and discrete. Don't be so arrogant. Thanks.
Additionally, a first grader, who can't yet spell his name, could not understand a 6th grade book such as The Cay. The language is too advanced, which would stop understanding. Move that level up to books such as anything by Faulkner or similar authors would be a rediculous concept.

It is less difficult to teach yourself high level English, all you do is read the books and comprehend them. Even then most of the highest level of English does not lead to much unless you are a novelist and most English experts aren't. Trust me, learning about Gaussian surfaces is more than an act of English.And math won't directly teach you much outside of math. What is your point here...that classes focus on their topics? My assertion was that understanding how one thing operates can lead to greater understanding of how another thing operates...ie, playing football and understanding trajectories. Additionally, it is a great deal more difficult to understand truly high level literature at a deep level. Pick up Faulkner. Read it. When you get to the end of the first sentence, somewhere around five pages and seven topics after it started, try to figure out what Faulkner was saying. And moreover, why he was saying it and why it was stated in the way it was.
No, sorry. English is not easy to understand.
Further, logic, pursuasiveness, clear thinking patterns, effective writing and speaking...these are taught by higher level English. I don't deny that math is difficult. I just don't claim that it is more difficult than every other topic.
Additionally, no, learning about Gaussian surfaces is not much more than an act of English. I could give you a list of numbers with a description in Mandarin. What good is it? It is just a list of numbers and a description you can't understand. Now, I can give it to you in English, and perhaps you will understand it. Now, I can provide you with a break down of how to accomplish the task, step by step. This can be written or spoken, it is still English.

Not really, in fact, all you are talking about is philosophy which is not taught at most schools. My logical faculties have benefitted very little from English compared to Science and I have taken more than most people are required to.I can't speak for any districts I haven't seen. Those that I have all offer logic as a part of Jr. year English courses.
Also, I don't think that most of the things that you are describing as taught by liberal arts are really that applicable to math and science(the study of beauty and mathematics have little in common for one).
Aesthetics has more involved than just beauty. Additionally, there is a structure known as the Golden Rectangle. It is the most appealing to the human eye, and is also one of the most structurally sound rectangles.Creativity is nice and Americans have it, however, people will be creative no matter what as creative expression exists even within the bonds of friendship after all the wisecracks made probably do more for creativity than any english teacher.Head to Japan. Creativity is not a given. There is a reason why they import American concepts and modify them. There is a reason why Google, Napster, Amazon, Ebay, the iPod, et. al. were all invented in America. Without creativity and innovation, technology is nothing. There is a reason why the Japanese look to the American school system to learn how to encourage individuality. Thats right, one of the top school systems in the world is looking to one of the worst. Maybe dominance in math isn't all there is.
The liberal arts will not contribute so significantly to creativity as to make the same impact as the same spending in math and science promotion.It does, it has, and it will. Additionally, my point isn't that the arts should be favored over mathematics. My point is that all must be supported. Federal funding of math just makes state and local governments have to pick up the slack for other areas. Same goes for higher federal funding of English.

It's really not that easy at all.
Certainly I oversimplified it. However, one must note that the difference between how hard an engineering student works and a liberal arts student works while both pursuing their bachelors degree. I have studied the arts, I have even self-studied the arts for course fulfillment tests and I can tell you that it is easier to figure out basic international politics than it is basic calculus.

It appears that an older and wiser someone knows what's good for you.

Wasting my time doing something that I'll never use again? Gee... I'm so glad that the fogeys know what's right for me. Otherwise I'd, you know, actually be learning something of use.

It's not my fault that their brains have started to go with age.

Certainly I oversimplified it. However, one must note that the difference between how hard an engineering student works and a liberal arts student works while both pursuing their bachelors degree. I have studied the arts, I have even self-studied the arts for course fulfillment tests and I can tell you that it is easier to figure out basic international politics than it is basic calculus.
Then you fail at international politics. Really, really badly.

Right. All honors student, graduated top of my class, and attend a university that ranks in the top 100 universities in the world. Thanks, I have a very strong background in both English and math, up through calc, stats, and discrete. Don't be so arrogant. Thanks.
Additionally, a first grader, who can't yet spell his name, could not understand a 6th grade book such as The Cay. The language is too advanced, which would stop understanding. Move that level up to books such as anything by Faulkner or similar authors would be a rediculous concept. Perhaps I am being arrogant, however, I just get the feeling that I am arguing with a bunch of liberal arts students and former students who have not studied very much math and are doggedly promoting their learning despite the economic need for other types. Right, which is why we teach English. There is no argument that we are going to stop teaching that subject.

And math won't directly teach you much outside of math. What is your point here...that classes focus on their topics? My assertion was that understanding how one thing operates can lead to greater understanding of how another thing operates...ie, playing football and understanding trajectories. Additionally, it is a great deal more difficult to understand truly high level literature at a deep level. Pick up Faulkner. Read it. When you get to the end of the first sentence, somewhere around five pages and seven topics after it started, try to figure out what Faulkner was saying. And moreover, why he was saying it and why it was stated in the way it was.
No, sorry. English is not easy to understand.
Further, logic, pursuasiveness, clear thinking patterns, effective writing and speaking...these are taught by higher level English. I don't deny that math is difficult. I just don't claim that it is more difficult than every other topic.
Additionally, no, learning about Gaussian surfaces is not much more than an act of English. I could give you a list of numbers with a description in Mandarin. What good is it? It is just a list of numbers and a description you can't understand. Now, I can give it to you in English, and perhaps you will understand it. Now, I can provide you with a break down of how to accomplish the task, step by step. This can be written or spoken, it is still English. You are right, it won't. However, math does give the ability to model much of the surrounding world. Students are not taught philosophy in their English classes, however, many Math books do take note of things outside of pure math. This can include business models, bacteria populations etc. Also, Faulkner is not really going to be something that students need for their economic welfare, or for the welfare of society. I imagine that spelling is something that is also taught by English as well? Anyway, clear thinking patterns can also be developed by mathematics as it is often not enough to just solve equations, and students must know what equation to apply in order to get the answer. Math and science are known to be harder than other subjects though, many people have written on the difficulty of math and science compared to other subjects. Learning mathematic concepts requires knowledge of mathematics.

I can't speak for any districts I haven't seen. Those that I have all offer logic as a part of Jr. year English courses. Ah, I know what you are talking about and it is incredibly basic and does not immunize people to innumeracy where they do not know what the numbers and statistics mean.

Aesthetics has more involved than just beauty. Additionally, there is a structure known as the Golden Rectangle. It is the most appealing to the human eye, and is also one of the most structurally sound rectangles.Head to Japan. Creativity is not a given. There is a reason why they import American concepts and modify them. There is a reason why Google, Napster, Amazon, Ebay, the iPod, et. al. were all invented in America. Without creativity and innovation, technology is nothing. There is a reason why the Japanese look to the American school system to learn how to encourage individuality. Thats right, one of the top school systems in the world is looking to one of the worst. Maybe dominance in math isn't all there is.
It does, it has, and it will. Additionally, my point isn't that the arts should be favored over mathematics. My point is that all must be supported. Federal funding of math just makes state and local governments have to pick up the slack for other areas. Same goes for higher federal funding of English.
Without mathematics none of that technology would have been created anyway. Individualism is not created by our good curriculum anyway, it is created by interstudent interactions and the entrepreneurship present in our culture. One can learn more about creativity in the clever tricks played by the students than they could in a week of an English class. All must be supported of course, however mathematics is part of where we are losing our edge, many economists and CEOs have noted this. If the liberal arts are so important than why are engineers one of the best represented groups as CEOs?

I probably am being a bit too defensive, however, I have read in so many places that our weak math and science background was responsible for our economic slowdown and really feel that such should not be ignored.

Then you fail at international politics. Really, really badly.
Let's see, we have this forum full of self-appointed international politics analysts and yet very little in terms of self-appointed math gurus. I am sorry, I probably should have said comparative politics, as I self-studied for a comparative politics test and passed as well. I did not fail really really badly. However, I would if that had been a calculus class.

Let's see, we have this forum full of self-appointed international politics analysts and yet very little in terms of self-appointed math gurus. I am sorry, I probably should have said comparative politics, the names are similar and I self-studied for a comparative politics test and passed as well. I did not fail really really badly.
Well I have two degrees in International Politics, so yes choosing that as a comparison was probably not a wise one.

Comparing pineapples and golf balls will get you nowhere- which is what you are trying to do by comparing 'the arts' with Maths/Science. They are both unique to their own, and neither is better nor worse than the other.

Well, what do you guys think of this? Bush is trying to get this idea passed the senate...and from what I have read the only negatives to this are, as key democrats put it, " Bush is increasing federal math and science education spending while cutting overall discretionary spending on education by trimming money in areas such as the arts, parent-resource centers and drug-free schools."...to which I give a huge :rolleyes:

Seriously...are the arts, parent-resource centers and drug free schools anywhere near as important as a population who can compete and kick ass in math and science? Does anyone think these democrats are being a little stupid about this? I think its a great idea.
---------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Saturday urged the Senate to back increased government spending on basic scientific research.


The proposal is part of Bush's initiative to boost U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace through innovation. He also wants to train thousand of new science and math teachers and extend a popular tax credit businesses can receive for investing in research and development. The total price tag over 10 years would be $136 billion.

But Bush said in his weekly radio address that his proposals are vital for America to "remain an innovative nation that competes with confidence(bolded for agreement) and would help ensure that every U.S. child has the math and science skills needed for the jobs of the future.

Bush asks Senate to raise science spending (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060708/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush)

Careful Bush, an educated nation is unlikely to vote for you.

Well I have two degrees in International Politics, so yes choosing that as a comparison was probably not a wise one.

Comparing pineapples and golf balls will get you nowhere- which is what you are trying to do by comparing 'the arts' with Maths/Science. They are both unique to their own, and neither is better nor worse than the other.
Perhaps not, I probably should have been more clear, however, one can introduce oneself to the basics of political thought with some ease. AFter all, the works of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are things that one must learn to start and they are also things that one can be self-taught and they are important in your field as well as it can be seen that realism is something that stems from their pragmatism. However, calculus is not something that is easy to learn and master comparatively. I can relax more easily to a book on politics than I could ever to one on mathematics.

Yet they must be compared, after all, to cut from one and contribute to another is what is being done. You love politics and you feel that it must be defended, I like politics as well and although I may not love it so much as you do I do understand the need for it. However, when I look at this I see an economic need and the necessity of our nation to meet this need before it reduces our quality of life too much. Economic need necessitates that we do value these studies according to how they need to be in order to make rational decisions. I figure that job skills > liberal arts.

Let me put this as simply as possible.

If one argues about which is more important, the arts or the sciences, then one has failed at both.

Careful Bush, an educated nation is unlikely to vote for you.
Why would that matter, it is his second term after all. I say science>art. Simply because science opens up more high paying jobs.

Why would that matter, it is his second term after all. I say science>art. Simply because science opens up more high paying jobs.
Our truest responsibility to the irrationality of the world is to paint or sing or write, for only in such response do we find the truth.

-Madeleine L'Engle

Why would that matter, it is his second term after all. I say science>art. Simply because science opens up more high paying jobs.

And making fire from chemicals is so much more fun than painting.

And making fire from chemicals is so much more fun than painting.
I never got kicked out of art from mixing chemicals I wasn't supposed to :p

I never got kicked out of art from mixing chemicals I wasn't supposed to :p

You still have time.

Heard this this morning and about swallowed my tongue. This is an administration that for 6 years has warped the results of every scientific study they could find. I can't think of a major scientific area that they haven't taken a stand against the majority of scientific study.

I guess when you have as little credibility in science as GW you can say anything. I'll bet Rush and Sean are painting the administration as the most scientific oriented ever because of this hollow statement.

Heard this this morning and about swallowed my tongue. This is an administration that for 6 years has warped the results of every scientific study they could find. I can't think of a major scientific area that they haven't taken a stand against the majority of scientific study.

I guess when you have as little credibility in science as GW you can say anything. I'll bet Rush and Sean are painting the administration as the most scientific oriented ever because of this hollow statement.

No, no, no... They don't really want scientists. What they want is engineers. They could care less about real academics, unless their work is somehow beneficial to the engineers. I doubt biology will see much in the way of encouragement (pity too, because it's one of the few sciences I enjoy), just physics, chemistry, and electronics/computers.

Why would that matter, it is his second term after all. I say science>art. Simply because science opens up more high paying jobs.

All right, then they might not vote for his son.

Let me put this as simply as possible.

If one argues about which is more important, the arts or the sciences, then one has failed at both.

Seconded.

Careful Bush, an educated nation is unlikely to vote for you.
People with a well rounded education, that can reason and critisize. But a populace with a narrow education, who are essentially taught only one thing not so much.

Art imagines, science realises. Skip a step and you don't have much.

The parent outreach thing bugs me more, oddly enough. The attack on art and thought is an old one, but to actually cut back on parental involvment after we've determined how important it is to a childs success in school no matter what they're studying is just, well...Bushlike.

Something to illustrate just how simple the arts are:

The Cortical Topography of Tonal Structures Underlying Western Music
Petr Janata,12* Jeffrey L. Birk,1 John D. Van Horn,23 Marc Leman,4 Barbara Tillmann,12 Jamshed J. Bharucha12

Western tonal music relies on a formal geometric structure that determines distance relationships within a harmonic or tonal space. In functional magnetic resonance imaging experiments, we identified an area in the rostromedial prefrontal cortex that tracks activation in tonal space. Different voxels in this area exhibited selectivity for different keys. Within the same set of consistently activated voxels, the topography of tonality selectivity rearranged itself across scanning sessions. The tonality structure was thus maintained as a dynamic topography in cortical areas known to be at a nexus of cognitive, affective, and mnemonic processing.

1 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences,
2 Center for Cognitive Neuroscience,
3 Dartmouth Brain Imaging Center, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
4 Institute for Psychoacoustics and Electronic Music, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: petr.janata@dartmouth.edu

What exactly is a drug free school? Maybe i'm just naive, but I was under the impression ALL schools were, at least in theory, drug free.

Our kids need better education. This is a small step in the right direction, methinks.

Wouldn't it be a delicious bit of irony if the people who think the liberal arts is irrelevant also happened to bitch about how repressive The Cultural Revolution was?

Then again they probably don't care for the arts because it's attached to the word "liberal."

:D

Yeah, that is pretty convincing. Science is pretty tough.
I know. So is understanding music.

I know. So is understanding music.
Especially from a scientific viewpoint. A wordy scientific review of music really shows how difficult it is for scientists to understand the physical nature of the world around them and they need more funding in order to better describe it. After all, through understanding the sciences we can better describe and more accurately describe the world about us.

Especially from a scientific viewpoint. A wordy scientific review of music really shows how difficult it is for scientists to understand the physical nature of the world around them and they need more funding in order to better describe it. After all, through understanding the sciences we can better describe and more accurately describe the world about us.
And the arts give it meaning. Really, how long would you like to go back and forth?

Especially from a scientific viewpoint. A wordy scientific review of music really shows how difficult it is for scientists to understand the physical nature of the world around them and they need more funding in order to better describe it. After all, through understanding the sciences we can better describe and more accurately describe the world about us.

Taking away from the arts will not solve that.

When arts are cut the music program is also included. Many schools around my area no longer have a music program.

One brags about have 10 minutes a week.

As stated before some of the most talented computer people I have ever come across has music degrees.

Science and math do need money.

The solution is to allocate more funds for it.

Not the shrubs bass ackwards approach of playing with accounting.

But again that would mean taking money from his little personal war.

Art?

What, when we're on the battlefield we're supposed to throw paint brushes at the enemy, and have our troops protected by canvases?

:rolleyes:

You just have a thing for segregating the poll don't you.

Art?

What, when we're on the battlefield we're supposed to throw paint brushes at the enemy, and have our troops protected by canvases?

:rolleyes:

Tell me that when all your propoganda artists, recruiting artists, and psych-warfare experts cease to exist.

You won't be able to.

Because they are just as important as a grunt with a gun, and they are in much shorter supply.

Art?

What, when we're on the battlefield we're supposed to throw paint brushes at the enemy, and have our troops protected by canvases?

:rolleyes:

Camoflage design. Weapons design. Military history and strategy. Morale. Recruing commercials. Propaganda.

Not to mention rebuilding Iraq will involve things like architecture.

Science provides a means to live. The Arts (the collective area of art: history, literature, philosophy, music, self-expression) provides a reason to live.

Without either of these, humanity will collapse. Neither can be ignored.

Perhaps I am being arrogant, however, I just get the feeling that I am arguing with a bunch of liberal arts students and former students who have not studied very much math and are doggedly promoting their learning despite the economic need for other types. Right, which is why we teach English. There is no argument that we are going to stop teaching that subject.*shrug* you're talking to someone who knows the education system quite well, as well as the applications for several subjects. While I am currently an English education major, I was a business major and still have the option to complete a double major. I don't promote liberal arts for my welfare. I promote it because I firmly believe that educating every child in every subject is vital. I've seen the difference it makes. Finding a ground that a child enjoys and can relate to makes all education much easier, and the maths and sciences can be bent to fit their interests.
You are right, it won't. However, math does give the ability to model much of the surrounding world. Students are not taught philosophy in their English classes, however, many Math books do take note of things outside of pure math. This can include business models, bacteria populations etc.Yes, the text books do take note of applications for the subject they teach. However, there is no reason why an English student can't be taught philosophy in an English class. I personally read tons of philosophical essays in my English classes, including an essay by AJ Ayer which directly argued against the study of theology, philosophy, and aesthetics (and by extention, English).
Also, Faulkner is not really going to be something that students need for their economic welfare, or for the welfare of society.
I raise Faulkner for one reason alone. If you can read, and more, understand, Faulkner, you can read and understand just about anything. Are having great math and science skills good? Yes. But if you cannot communicate what you are researching and the conclusions you have drawn, or cannot understand what the basic premise of an article is, then you are essentially worthless. You cn do all the research you want, but it won't be published, and therefore, wont be built upon.
Anyway, clear thinking patterns can also be developed by mathematics as it is often not enough to just solve equations, and students must know what equation to apply in order to get the answer.
I don't argue that English is better at forming clear thinking patterns. I argue that the thinking patterns are complimentary to one another. Having both systems working to develop a specific thinking pattern is stronger than either one working seperatly.
Math and science are known to be harder than other subjects though, many people have written on the difficulty of math and science compared to other subjects. Define "harder". I know several people who got A's in organic chemisty without ever picking up the book to study. And yet, I know atleast 20x as many who failed it after studying all semester with a tutor. The difficulty of a course is subjective, as well as far too varied to define. I have engineering friends who say I have a harder work load. They can build a circuit, and it either works or it doesnt. Further, there is a specific reason why it won't work. Yet I can work for two weeks on a paper, and still do poorly because the prof. was in a bad mood while he graded.

Learning mathematic concepts requires knowledge of mathematics.This is circular. You basically just said to learn math, one must know math. This is impossible, unless math is innate. If math is innate, it doesn't need to be taught. I'm pretty sure I know what you were going for, but I don't want to assume.
Ah, I know what you are talking about and it is incredibly basic and does not immunize people to innumeracy where they do not know what the numbers and statistics mean.I personally had a great course in logic. While it did not deal directly with statistics, it is easily converted, and is the reason I ended up getting an A in stats.

Without mathematics none of that technology would have been created anyway. Individualism is not created by our good curriculum anyway, it is created by interstudent interactions and the entrepreneurship present in our culture.And schools mirror society. One can learn more about creativity in the clever tricks played by the students than they could in a week of an English class.Schooling is not only what is taught in a textbook or lecture. There is more to it than that. A basis in liberal arts, however, has been demonstrated to help encourage creativity.
All must be supported of course, however mathematics is part of where we are losing our edge, many economists and CEOs have noted this. If the liberal arts are so important than why are engineers one of the best represented groups as CEOs?Yes, we are losing our edge in math. Funding is a problem, but not the only problem. And the funding problems are not only to the math and science departments.
Additionally, I could ask you why the MBA degree is losing favor quickly. The answer would be that MBA's are trained to think in only numbers and "widgets". There is no creativity, only the bottom line and stock price.
Being an engineer does not mean not being creative. Actually, Penn State and Boston University, which together supply a huge number of our government engineers, are both liberal arts universities.

I probably am being a bit too defensive, however, I have read in so many places that our weak math and science background was responsible for our economic slowdown and really feel that such should not be ignored.I don't think you are. I find this to be a pretty good debate.

I don't argue by any means that math and science should be cut. But the solution isn't to just fund math and science and ignore all other subjects or reduce them to obscurity. They are all wholly complimentary to one another. That is a large part of why most high schools do not allow students to choose a "major" of sorts. They should by no means be ignored, but neither should any other subject

Art?

What, when we're on the battlefield we're supposed to throw paint brushes at the enemy, and have our troops protected by canvases?

:rolleyes:
lean in closer. I have to whisper this to you. Closer.


Closer.


good.

now, are you listening?



THE ARTICLE IS TALKING ABOUT THE ARTS. NOT ART. THE ARTS. THERE IS A GLARING DIFFERENCE THAT IS BLATANT TO ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN EDUCATED IN THE ARTS, IRONICALLY.

[/ends rant]
*breathes*

The problem with the education system isn't with the teachers but the students.

The problem with the education system isn't with the teachers but the students.
and the parents.

but to be fair, certain teachers don't help.

and the parents.

but to be fair, certain teachers don't help.
Well, yeah.

and the parents.

but to be fair, certain teachers don't help.

Personally, I blame the administrators.

Personally, I blame the administrators.
I blame society at large. But if I was to go for a scapegoat, parents get that.

Please, they are not comparable, a 1st grader can easily have the reading comprehension of a 6th grader without much effort however, for them to have the math comprehension of a 6th grader requires outside help. The fact that you can compare them as such shows how limited your mathematical background truly is, I have a background in both and I can tell you that the math tends to be harder.

Harder for whom? Have you done a comprehensive study of students nationwide to determine how comparable levels of English and math compare in difficulty to learn independently? Or, maybe, are you just speaking from your own personal experience, which is (as any good scientist would tell you) relevant to no one but you?

To give a counterpart to your experience, I went to a largely horrible elementary school. I quite literally taught myself math, with little to no assistance, up to and including algebra. I found it pretty darn easy. Oddly enough, I concluded not that this meant "math is easy to teach yourself," but rather "boy, I was a really weird and rather brilliant little child." I also worked as a tutor while I was in high school, and met more than one child who found reading "The Cat in the Hat" to be much more challenging than multiplication. Math is harder for some people. English is harder for others. Ideally, everyone should have good teachers and funding for both.

Certainly I oversimplified it. However, one must note that the difference between how hard an engineering student works and a liberal arts student works while both pursuing their bachelors degree. I have studied the arts, I have even self-studied the arts for course fulfillment tests and I can tell you that it is easier to figure out basic international politics than it is basic calculus.

Ha. I literally slept through almost every calculus class I ever had, and still consistently got A's. As far as I'm concerned, I really don't need a math teacher, but I've never yet found a textbook that can teach me choral conducting.

And, oh, yes, those lazy liberal arts students. :rolleyes: Speaking as someone who very nearly triple-majored in music, English, and chemistry - you simply have no idea what you're talking about. I frequently did much more intensive and difficult work for my music and English classes than for my chem classes. Where I went to college, the art history program was considered to be one of the most demanding majors available. While the intensity of any given program obviously varies from school to school, there's absolutely nothing easier or lighter-weight about a serious liberal arts degree than a serious science degree.

The arts are important. The sciences are important. Anyone who wants to support one to the exclusion of the other is a fool - simple as that.

*shrug* you're talking to someone who knows the education system quite well, as well as the applications for several subjects. While I am currently an English education major, I was a business major and still have the option to complete a double major. I don't promote liberal arts for my welfare. I promote it because I firmly believe that educating every child in every subject is vital. I've seen the difference it makes. Finding a ground that a child enjoys and can relate to makes all education much easier, and the maths and sciences can be bent to fit their interests.
Yes, the text books do take note of applications for the subject they teach. However, there is no reason why an English student can't be taught philosophy in an English class. I personally read tons of philosophical essays in my English classes, including an essay by AJ Ayer which directly argued against the study of theology, philosophy, and aesthetics (and by extention, English). Well, of course there is nothing wrong with broad education, however the question is how much we can get for our buck? I think that a bent towards more sciences might be to our benefit, however, I will admit that I might have bias as well as most of the liberal arts teachers sucked at my school and I ended up really teaching myself the subject. The idea is that if we had better math teachers then we would have more math people, after all, considering the nature that education can have on a child and how one teacher can irrevocably change a child's destiny and the fact that our economy could use more math/science people wouldn't it be wise to tip the balance in a manner to benefit our economy? It does sound like you are a very good english teacher though, probably better than most of the one's I have had.

I raise Faulkner for one reason alone. If you can read, and more, understand, Faulkner, you can read and understand just about anything. Are having great math and science skills good? Yes. But if you cannot communicate what you are researching and the conclusions you have drawn, or cannot understand what the basic premise of an article is, then you are essentially worthless. You cn do all the research you want, but it won't be published, and therefore, wont be built upon.
Hmmm.... I cannot really find any free Faulkner on the internet besides the occasional quote. I dunno, what you say sort of intrigues me as I tend to like challenging myself. It is true that science teachers do not ignore the importance of communication skills either, most of the science classes I have had require lab reports written up for the labs. This stresses practical english that is used to describe findings as well as communicate knowledge held on a topic. The increased demand for write-ups on AP math and science tests is sign of this, showing that even these teachers do have to deal with such skills. However, it seems sort of interesting to me that some of the students better a write-ups are worse at english.

I don't argue that English is better at forming clear thinking patterns. I argue that the thinking patterns are complimentary to one another. Having both systems working to develop a specific thinking pattern is stronger than either one working seperatly.
It is true that some skill in other topics is necessary. I have never argued that children should be raised in a vacuum devoid of all non-science knowledge, however, the optimal blend of focus is something that is in question. After all, if one desires more science people then they might try to focus on more scientific thinking patterns. If CEOs and economists claim that we need more science people to maintain innovation then isn't this a call for focusing on scientific thought?

Define "harder". I know several people who got A's in organic chemisty without ever picking up the book to study. And yet, I know atleast 20x as many who failed it after studying all semester with a tutor. The difficulty of a course is subjective, as well as far too varied to define. I have engineering friends who say I have a harder work load. They can build a circuit, and it either works or it doesnt. Further, there is a specific reason why it won't work. Yet I can work for two weeks on a paper, and still do poorly because the prof. was in a bad mood while he graded. Of course there will always be variance based upon ability, however, I have often heard of the difficulty and rigor of engineering degrees. I would argue that while for an individual subjective may be accurate on the overall scale we could easily take a median for the difficulty that individuals place on the fields. Of course there will be outliers there always are in a sample of a large size. One cannot say that the difficulty lies in the grades, but rather in the effort required to attain the grades. However, this all boils down to whose word we take, I may have read in many sources about the difficulty of engineering however, there is no way for me to know their statistics because they never mentioned them.

This is circular. You basically just said to learn math, one must know math. This is impossible, unless math is innate. If math is innate, it doesn't need to be taught. I'm pretty sure I know what you were going for, but I don't want to assume.
Well, the point was that for higher up math it did need to be taught. I think that a major problem is being math illiterate. I had a class that spent a month focused on one equation and yet still did not get it despite the fact that the changes to it were minimal(though to be fair it was a bad teacher). I have not really met anyone as handicapped in english as these people were handicapped in algebra. However, once again, one experience does not mean anything. At the very least better math skills would give one a better handle on statistics and what they mean.

I personally had a great course in logic. While it did not deal directly with statistics, it is easily converted, and is the reason I ended up getting an A in stats. Yes, logic and mathematics go together quite well. A good background in one could probably help with the other. However, I have not seen many high schools offer that.

And schools mirror society. Schooling is not only what is taught in a textbook or lecture. There is more to it than that. A basis in liberal arts, however, has been demonstrated to help encourage creativity.
I think that rather than our background in liberal arts that drives our creativity it is likely our sense of humor and daring. Most of the creativity I have seen was not in the actual schooling of course but rather native to the students themselves. A student who drew funny comics depicting teachers was not driven by liberal arts studies to do so, nor is the creative substitution of terms or use of innuendo really sponsored by the school. Whether or not schools mirror society does not mean that their structure is variable based upon society.

Yes, we are losing our edge in math. Funding is a problem, but not the only problem. And the funding problems are not only to the math and science departments. Of course, many school districts are crap and run by robbers. Our school district is the butt of many jokes even by the faculty. However, schools were designed to meet a need.

Additionally, I could ask you why the MBA degree is losing favor quickly. The answer would be that MBA's are trained to think in only numbers and "widgets". There is no creativity, only the bottom line and stock price.

Heh, it is sort of funny, either my area is really behind or something. We have recently been getting a lot of news on MBAs being in very high demand. I dunno, I think this news article might be good as it shows that things have changed for the MBA.
MBA (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2006-02-14-mba-usat_x.htm)

Being an engineer does not mean not being creative. Actually, Penn State and Boston University, which together supply a huge number of our government engineers, are both liberal arts universities. Of course engineers have some form of creativity, however, the strength of the math is probably the best reason for the capability of the engineer. When dealing with major problems it is through the analysis of the information and the use of given data that one finds a solution. There is no poetry to the curviture of the function, only x's and y's and maybe even z's to be manipulated to find the desired effect. The ability to do this and do this well is based largely on one's strength in algebra and other math and is not something that history or english can do much to augment.

I don't think you are. I find this to be a pretty good debate.

AWWW!!! How nice! Somebody who doesn't think I am an asshole, that is so sweet!:D

I don't argue by any means that math and science should be cut. But the solution isn't to just fund math and science and ignore all other subjects or reduce them to obscurity. They are all wholly complimentary to one another. That is a large part of why most high schools do not allow students to choose a "major" of sorts. They should by no means be ignored, but neither should any other subject
No subject is going to necessarily be ignored. Math may gain more strength but still students will always have liberal arts classes with teachers who will teach them stuff. And of course there will always be libraries full of books for the dedicated student to study. I dunno, I would have actually liked having a math/science major in high school. If I had one less english class I could have done better on the chemistry AP test. Actually having the class does contribute to one's success in the sciences.

Harder for whom? Have you done a comprehensive study of students nationwide to determine how comparable levels of English and math compare in difficulty to learn independently? Or, maybe, are you just speaking from your own personal experience, which is (as any good scientist would tell you) relevant to no one but you? No, I am speaking from everything that I have read about the field. If I grabbed a college major book off of the shelf of the bookstore and looked up engineering it would often say that engineering was a hard field. Heck, there was even a book that I read that promoted engineering and once again it stated that it was a hard field where students would have to work more than the average college student. Of course, those books could be wrong but then again I have just heard it so often that I believed everyone knew.

To give a counterpart to your experience, I went to a largely horrible elementary school. I quite literally taught myself math, with little to no assistance, up to and including algebra. I found it pretty darn easy. Oddly enough, I concluded not that this meant "math is easy to teach yourself," but rather "boy, I was a really weird and rather brilliant little child." I also worked as a tutor while I was in high school, and met more than one child who found reading "The Cat in the Hat" to be much more challenging than multiplication. Math is harder for some people. English is harder for others. Ideally, everyone should have good teachers and funding for both. The first question is whether or not that was algebra 1 or 2. I dunno, I am just curious. More basic math is more basic in terms of understanding and its ideas are more elementary. The reason I state this is that I have met very few people that have ever self-taught themselves calculus yet to read something like 1984 or The Invisible Man(not HG Wells) is something that most people are capable of.
Heck, even if they did not understand it at first there are many websites out there that help explain the book. Math being a process is more difficult without solid fully worked examples. Ideally we should have funding to do whatever schools need, however, when it comes to the economics we have funds and we have needs so we must get these funds into places where they are needed the most. In a society that needs more scientifically capable people math and science seem to be something that more funding needs to go to. It is not as if Othello will really teach you about getting a job and if you do find it applicable then I fear for this society.(remember Iago's plan on getting a job although of course Iago's motives seem hard to figure)


Ha. I literally slept through almost every calculus class I ever had, and still consistently got A's. As far as I'm concerned, I really don't need a math teacher, but I've never yet found a textbook that can teach me choral conducting. I have never found a need for choral conducting. I have always made fun of the teachers in my liberal arts classes and never had problems with passing either.

And, oh, yes, those lazy liberal arts students. :rolleyes: Speaking as someone who very nearly triple-majored in music, English, and chemistry - you simply have no idea what you're talking about. I frequently did much more intensive and difficult work for my music and English classes than for my chem classes. Where I went to college, the art history program was considered to be one of the most demanding majors available. While the intensity of any given program obviously varies from school to school, there's absolutely nothing easier or lighter-weight about a serious liberal arts degree than a serious science degree. Once again, I have never heard of a light weight engineering program. Of course, that may be due to a lack of knowledge on the issue. Who knows, maybe your school is the oddball, or maybe my sources are wrong. Either way, this still does not ignore the economic argument that we need science for technological innovation. After all, it is only from the study of science that we learn science and it is only from science that technology is built.

The arts are important. The sciences are important. Anyone who wants to support one to the exclusion of the other is a fool - simple as that.
Nobody has supported eliminating the arts. However, I do not hear the ringing of the cash register when I hear about starting salaries for english majors. I do hear them when I hear about engineering majors. I hear of starting salaries around $50,000 which means that there is a need for them. I also, do not hear about economists and CEOs whining about a lack of music majors, I hear about them complaining about a lack of engineering majors and that slowing down our economy.

Hmmm.... I cannot really find any free Faulkner on the internet besides the occasional quote. I dunno, what you say sort of intrigues me as I tend to like challenging myself.

Public libraries are wonderful things. ;)

If you like challenges, Faulkner is fun! He's also an incredible writer, period, and well worth anyone's effort. I'd recommend starting with As I Lay Dying, which is probably the most accessible and easiest-to-read of his books.

And, hey, if you work through a fair amount of Faulkner's oeuvre and decide you still want more challenges, then you can start on Joyce, too... :D

I have never found a need for choral conducting. I have always made fun of the teachers in my liberal arts classes and never had problems with passing either.

Passing a class has nothing to do with succeding in it. Liberal arts are much harder to grade than are math and science. Math and science are assignment based, you either understand or you don't. Concepts get force-fed to your head. You can't do the same thing with the liberal arts. They are much more conceptually complex, as academic subjects, as they require synthesis, and not merely comprehension. Grading synthesis is by it's nature difficult, and almost never assigned to a class that isn't full of students who are going to major in the art in question. If you're having an easy time in your political science course, it's because you're letting yourself slide by without challenging concepts and ideas in your own head.

Just because you got an A, doesn't mean you know jack crap about a subject. I got an A in Biology. Yay for me. I might know a few facts, but that just means I know facts, it doesn't mean I can do anything with them. Only when you CAN see the applications of the liberal arts to everything, can you claim to have succeded in the class.

Just remember, every time you go after a choral conductor, you're saying that you don't really want music produced. You can talk shit for as long as you want, but until you can play an instrument at a professional level, you have no place to tell people how "easy" it is, and how it has to be a hobby. The sheer number of hours demanded of a young musician are compounded by school work. Most of the work a serious young musician is going to do is not going to happen in our public schools. They don't even offer the courses needed, or truly the expertise (they can't afford it).

Economists can tell us about how important another engineer is, but they'd be saying nothing if it weren't for their education in the liberal arts. Irony, eh?

You know, there is a third way... how about you don't have to choose? How about you just slash the ludicrous military budget and fund both sciences and arts?
....
...
..
.
..
...
....
Yeah, I suppose it is a bit of a 'gay idea'. Sorry. I'll go be a commie somwhere else...

Well, of course there is nothing wrong with broad education, however the question is how much we can get for our buck? I think that a bent towards more sciences might be to our benefit, however, I will admit that I might have bias as well as most of the liberal arts teachers sucked at my school and I ended up really teaching myself the subject. The idea is that if we had better math teachers then we would have more math people, after all, considering the nature that education can have on a child and how one teacher can irrevocably change a child's destiny and the fact that our economy could use more math/science people wouldn't it be wise to tip the balance in a manner to benefit our economy? It does sound like you are a very good english teacher though, probably better than most of the one's I have had.I support higher standards and pay for all teachers. This would actually imply higher pay for science teachers in itself...science jobs pay more than English jobs, and as such, teaching would require higher pay to be a competitive job. And thanks for the compliment. I'm still a student, and god knows if I'll end up being a teacher, but for now, it seems to be working for me.

Hmmm.... I cannot really find any free Faulkner on the internet besides the occasional quote. I dunno, what you say sort of intrigues me as I tend to like challenging myself.I'd suggest sound and the fury...it is his most accessable book. But even then, be prepared to read and re-read every sentence. His writing is a pain in the ass and is only really read to be able to say you read it.
It is true that science teachers do not ignore the importance of communication skills either, most of the science classes I have had require lab reports written up for the labs. This stresses practical english that is used to describe findings as well as communicate knowledge held on a topic. The increased demand for write-ups on AP math and science tests is sign of this, showing that even these teachers do have to deal with such skills. However, it seems sort of interesting to me that some of the students better a write-ups are worse at english.The interesting part is that students can be trained to write in a particular fashion. A science writeup is a poor analysis format by a critical literary analysis criteria, but learning one adds another tool to help write the other.
It is true that some skill in other topics is necessary. I have never argued that children should be raised in a vacuum devoid of all non-science knowledge, however, the optimal blend of focus is something that is in question. After all, if one desires more science people then they might try to focus on more scientific thinking patterns. If CEOs and economists claim that we need more science people to maintain innovation then isn't this a call for focusing on scientific thought?It could be a call for more education in science. It could also be a mere observation. Actually, if you ask me, we need something to make science exciting. The 60's had the space race, and since then, we've had nothing big except the internet, which grew too fast and collapsed even faster. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see a slight burst in sci/tech/com students soon.

Well, the point was that for higher up math it did need to be taught. I think that a major problem is being math illiterate. I had a class that spent a month focused on one equation and yet still did not get it despite the fact that the changes to it were minimal(though to be fair it was a bad teacher). I have not really met anyone as handicapped in english as these people were handicapped in algebra. However, once again, one experience does not mean anything. At the very least better math skills would give one a better handle on statistics and what they mean. English and math have alot in common, in that they are a cumulative system (Lingusitics is the field that best displays this relationship, particularly historical comparitive linguistics). If you can't understand that 2+3=5, you won't understand why 2x3=6. If you can't comprehend a level A story, you won't comprehend a level B story. And sadly, the literacy rate in some areas of this country are just depressing. Even more sad is that illiteracy in English pretty much implies illiteracy in math and science.
Yes, logic and mathematics go together quite well. A good background in one could probably help with the other. However, I have not seen many high schools offer that.the sad fact is that high schools often can't offer the courses they should due to budget and other restrictions. However, I could easily create a cross-subject class that taught math alongside logic or even philosophy (although, I think that would require a higher level of math...)

I think that rather than our background in liberal arts that drives our creativity it is likely our sense of humor and daring. Most of the creativity I have seen was not in the actual schooling of course but rather native to the students themselves. A student who drew funny comics depicting teachers was not driven by liberal arts studies to do so, nor is the creative substitution of terms or use of innuendo really sponsored by the school. Whether or not schools mirror society does not mean that their structure is variable based upon society.It isn't so much what creates the creativity...it is what makes the environment that allows it to grow. 2+2=4 because it does. I can draw it, I can model it...it just is that way, and always will be. That doesn't allow creativity. Taking a 23 word poem and writing a 5000 word essay requires many different methods of looking at the poem and thinking about they whys, hows, and what ifs. Oddly, my biggest problem in math was that I asked "why" too often. Rather than just taking the formula and applying it, I had to know why the formula looked like it did, functioned like it did, and why it worked. Eventually, I would manage to confuse myself because I wouldn't accept that something just "was". The liberal arts education doesn't create individuality, per se, but it does allow for it, even down to the fact that every student can find the place where they are comfortable.
Of course, many school districts are crap and run by robbers. Our school district is the butt of many jokes even by the faculty. However, schools were designed to meet a need.sadly, they often fail.

Heh, it is sort of funny, either my area is really behind or something. We have recently been getting a lot of news on MBAs being in very high demand. I dunno, I think this news article might be good as it shows that things have changed for the MBA.
MBA (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2006-02-14-mba-usat_x.htm)They are still in high demand...but certain key companies, particularly those in more creative fields, are starting to shy away (The Walt Disney Company is a primary example, but many are following suit as they realize that customers have a personal relationship with the products they buy)
Of course engineers have some form of creativity, however, the strength of the math is probably the best reason for the capability of the engineer. When dealing with major problems it is through the analysis of the information and the use of given data that one finds a solution. There is no poetry to the curviture of the function, only x's and y's and maybe even z's to be manipulated to find the desired effect. The ability to do this and do this well is based largely on one's strength in algebra and other math and is not something that history or english can do much to augment.It is no question that the math ability is what makes the engineer able to manipulate and bring the idea into being. However, the imagination and creativity are what create the idea...for example...I have a dream to make a pocket sized thing that can play hours upon hours of music anywhere I go without disturbing other people. That idea is great. now, the math comes in and we get the physical iPod. Without the idea or the math, it would not exist.
Science provides the how, art provides the why.

AWWW!!! How nice! Somebody who doesn't think I am an asshole, that is so sweet!:D haha, I try.

No subject is going to necessarily be ignored. Math may gain more strength but still students will always have liberal arts classes with teachers who will teach them stuff. And of course there will always be libraries full of books for the dedicated student to study. I dunno, I would have actually liked having a math/science major in high school. If I had one less english class I could have done better on the chemistry AP test. Actually having the class does contribute to one's success in the sciences.The point of a high school is to introduce students to new ideas and give them an idea of what they could do. For example, I hated English in middle school, and loved math and science. Had I chosen a major in 9th grade, I would be going for biology. And I would be miserable. There is no way a 13/14 year old can know what they want to do for the rest of their lives. Hell, most people don't even declare a major untill jr. year of college.

I have looked a bit more into bushes proposal. This isn't an education bill. It is an economic bill. Funding research is not education. If bush gave a damn about education, he would have repealed NCLB years ago.

Is To Kill a Mockingbird a tough book to "get?"

Public libraries are wonderful things. ;)

If you like challenges, Faulkner is fun! He's also an incredible writer, period, and well worth anyone's effort. I'd recommend starting with As I Lay Dying, which is probably the most accessible and easiest-to-read of his books.

And, hey, if you work through a fair amount of Faulkner's oeuvre and decide you still want more challenges, then you can start on Joyce, too... :D
hmm...I thought Sound and The Fury was his most accessable...never have gotten around to As I Lay Dying tho...

He is fun in that masochistic way. I remember reading 50 pages, sitting up and thinking "Wow...did I actually read any of that? I don't remember a thing", and had ot go back and re-read. Great writer, but damn does he give me a headache sometimes;)

Is To Kill a Mockingbird a tough book to "get?"
not particularly...why?

not particularly...why?

Because I didn't get the book until someone explained it to me. Is that a bad sign?

Because I didn't get the book until someone explained it to me. Is that a bad sign?
again, not particularly. A single book doesn't determine much. I've had really basic books that I really just didn't "get" (either in part or in whole), and yet overall I'm a very strong reader.

No, I am speaking from everything that I have read about the field. If I grabbed a college major book off of the shelf of the bookstore and looked up engineering it would often say that engineering was a hard field. Heck, there was even a book that I read that promoted engineering and once again it stated that it was a hard field where students would have to work more than the average college student. Of course, those books could be wrong but then again I have just heard it so often that I believed everyone knew.

I'd say that any good program, anywhere, should have you working harder than the "average college student." A lot of average college students do very little work no matter what they're theoretically learning, after all.

The first question is whether or not that was algebra 1 or 2. I dunno, I am just curious. More basic math is more basic in terms of understanding and its ideas are more elementary. The reason I state this is that I have met very few people that have ever self-taught themselves calculus yet to read something like 1984 or The Invisible Man(not HG Wells) is something that most people are capable of.
Heck, even if they did not understand it at first there are many websites out there that help explain the book. Math being a process is more difficult without solid fully worked examples. Ideally we should have funding to do whatever schools need, however, when it comes to the economics we have funds and we have needs so we must get these funds into places where they are needed the most. In a society that needs more scientifically capable people math and science seem to be something that more funding needs to go to. It is not as if Othello will really teach you about getting a job and if you do find it applicable then I fear for this society.(remember Iago's plan on getting a job although of course Iago's motives seem hard to figure)

Heh. It was neither "Algebra I" nor "Algebra II" per se; I was about eight at the time, and not working from a textbook. (I also worked out a ridiculous amount of geometry sans textbook or instruction of any kind - I was really a very bizarre child in many ways.)

Irrelevant correction - the Ellison novel is Invisible Man, not The Invisible Man. And even a crazy little prodigy like me would be shocked to meet a child who wouldn't be rather baffled upon reading the whole "light bulb" sequence in that book. Literary symbolism is a process as surely as algebra is, which likewise requires solid examples - and, generally, solid discussion as well, which math typically does not. I also can't imagine someone with no solid background in history getting anything useful out of 1984. What use is it to be able to comprehend words without understanding what those words actually add up to? I'd say, at least, it's no more use than being able to read a mathematical equation out loud but having no idea how to solve it. English is more than sounding out words, just as mathematics is more than being able to count to ten.

I also wonder at your statement that "Othello will not really teach you about getting a job." You seem to have a very narrow definition of "job" which includes only the corporate marketplace, since I was under the impression that, say, "novelist," "actor," and "English professor" were "jobs," and even the most philistine of philistines could hardly deny that reading Shakespeare is rather useful for those. (I'd argue that it's tremendously useful for all walks of life, anyway, since the true purpose of education is not simply to gain knowledge but to gain the ability to think, but that may be excessively philosophical for this discussion.)

I have never found a need for choral conducting. I have always made fun of the teachers in my liberal arts classes and never had problems with passing either.

Well, I have never found a need for bureaucrats - and yet, they still exist, and the things they create are a great deal less pleasant than beautiful music. (Again, I could get all philosophical about how music is one of the oldest forms of communication known to mankind, or discuss the close ties between musical ability and mathematical aptitude, or even just lay teh smack down on you for dissing a profession that I'm very seriously considering going to grad school to pursue as a permanent career, but I'll leave it at that for now. :) )

Once again, I have never heard of a light weight engineering program. Of course, that may be due to a lack of knowledge on the issue. Who knows, maybe your school is the oddball, or maybe my sources are wrong. Either way, this still does not ignore the economic argument that we need science for technological innovation. After all, it is only from the study of science that we learn science and it is only from science that technology is built.

My school was hardly an oddball - it's generally considered to be one of the best colleges in the world. The only program there I ever heard being called lightweight was actually economics, which was joked about as "the football player's major," and "the legacy's major." As I said, any good program at any good school requires serious effort; any lousy program is, well, lousy. I wouldn't be surprised if engineering programs are, on average, more intense than art history programs, but this reflects only on specific departments at specific schools, not on the subjects themselves.

It is most certainly not only from the study of science that one learns science. To use an extrememly easy example, I've learned a great deal of anatomy in studying music - a singer has to if she wants to be good at what she's doing. As far as it being "only from science that technology is built," you've already heard the example of Disney's pioneering work in robotics. Such examples are far from uncommon.

Nobody has supported eliminating the arts. However, I do not hear the ringing of the cash register when I hear about starting salaries for english majors. I do hear them when I hear about engineering majors. I hear of starting salaries around $50,000 which means that there is a need for them. I also, do not hear about economists and CEOs whining about a lack of music majors, I hear about them complaining about a lack of engineering majors and that slowing down our economy.

Wait, salary determines need now? By that standard, we have next to no "need" for public school teachers, farm workers, plumbers, janitors, assembly line workers, and nurses, and a desperate, burning need for CEOs, Hollywood actors, supermodels, and (depending on your definition of "salary") Paris Hilton. Puh-lease. :p

hmm...I thought Sound and The Fury was his most accessable...never have gotten around to As I Lay Dying tho...

He is fun in that masochistic way. I remember reading 50 pages, sitting up and thinking "Wow...did I actually read any of that? I don't remember a thing", and had ot go back and re-read. Great writer, but damn does he give me a headache sometimes;)

Hee. I did exactly the same thing the first time I read The Sound and the Fury. I kind of suspect most people do.

I highly, highly recommend As I Lay Dying - it's actually one of my personal favorite novels. It's also less headache-inducing than most Faulkner, since it's written in a series of short chapters (sometimes really short, as with the infamous and delightful chapter which reads, in its entirety, "My mother is a fish."), so there are no 20-page paragraphs.

Tossing in my two yen,

Math and science are much needed subjects, and sad to say, it is nowadays very hard to GET qualified Math and Science teachers. The pay is just not there.

However, it should not be done at the expense of the liberal arts.

It should be noted that shortly after Sputnik launched, the US went through a call for more and more science and math education in order to catch up. Money was delivered and more students were pushed into related fields... and that was just over 40 years ago.

It should also be noted that Japan, usually held up as the bastion of math and science education where it is forced fed into the students is currently desperately attempting to copy the more creative aspects of the US system into the Japanese system in an attempt to stroke more creativity in its students.

As a personal aside, when I student taught in the US; my junior high school students in the computer class I was teaching had one hell of a time doing simple addition and subtraction to run the old Logos programs, but could write very creativly and did some remarkable things within the class when they were allowed to be creative.

My junior high school kids in Japan are taking math I can't understand (They're somewhere in calculus right now), but they cannot devlop a paper if their life depends upon it. In attempting to teach English, I often run into the demand for the "right" answer and the "right" formula that will work all the time with them having one hell of a time understanding that languages do not work that way.

Both the Arts and the Sciences are needed, and one is not more important or more needed than the other.

Hee. I did exactly the same thing the first time I read The Sound and the Fury. I kind of suspect most people do.

I highly, highly recommend As I Lay Dying - it's actually one of my personal favorite novels. It's also less headache-inducing than most Faulkner, since it's written in a series of short chapters (sometimes really short, as with the infamous and delightful chapter which reads, in its entirety, "My mother is a fish."), so there are no 20-page paragraphs.
I had to read Absalom, Absalom!. That book made me want to kill both myself and Faulkner. It is a good book, but damn is it dense and confusing. It is the epitome of 13 page sentence style.

and NERVUN, as always, :fluffle:

I've been putting off Faulkner. Tried to read the Sound and the Fury and it is definitely not a book to be touched if there are the slightest distractions about. I'll probably read it this winter. I'm saving Joyce for my future mid-life crisis. If I'm going to go down, go down in flames sort of thing.

I've been putting off Faulkner. Tried to read the Sound and the Fury and it is definitely not a book to be touched if there are the slightest distractions about. I'll probably read it this winter. I'm saving Joyce for my future mid-life crisis. If I'm going to go down, go down in flames sort of thing.
Faulkner, I suggest getting noise-cancelling headphones, get some white noise CD's, lock yourself in a stark white closet, and read. And even then, be prepared to re-read atleast 2/3 of the first few chapters. Once you're used to his style, you'll only have to re-read 1/3:)

Although I certainly wouldn't label the arts as "gay", I will agree that the arts should be considered a hobby and not a career! Be it drawing, writing, painting, or performing, these are all things that, though enjoyable, the world can get by without! Math and science are probably nowhere near as enjoyable but, without them, the world stands NO chance!!! I'm with Bush on this one!

Although I certainly wouldn't label the arts as "gay", I will agree that the arts should be considered a hobby and not a career! Be it drawing, writing, painting, or performing, these are all things that, though enjoyable, the world can get by without! Math and science are probably nowhere near as enjoyable but, without them, the world stands NO chance!!! I'm with Bush on this one!

Let's see you try. Really. Math and Science are important, but without the arts, they just sustain the lives of meaningless robots.

Although I certainly wouldn't label the arts as "gay", I will agree that the arts should be considered a hobby and not a career! Be it drawing, writing, painting, or performing, these are all things that, though enjoyable, the world can get by without! Math and science are probably nowhere near as enjoyable but, without them, the world stands NO chance!!! I'm with Bush on this one!
uh huh. You can thank a scientist for the fact that you have a computer to type on, but you can thank an English teacher for the fact that you have something to say on it. The two are intertwined and inseperable.

as an Australian high school student I did the English Language and Literacy Assessment (ELLA) in year 7 and Secondary Numeracy Assessment Programs (SNAP). one for maths and one for english. apparently Australia is doing well internationally in BOTH areas. in Australia the only subject that is compulsory in the HSC is english, you can actually choose to do no maths or science.

Although I certainly wouldn't label the arts as "gay", I will agree that the arts should be considered a hobby and not a career! Be it drawing, writing, painting, or performing, these are all things that, though enjoyable, the world can get by without! Math and science are probably nowhere near as enjoyable but, without them, the world stands NO chance!!! I'm with Bush on this one!
If the world can get by without them, is it not odd that every culture on the planet back to caveman days devloped art and writing before science and math were devloped?

No, both are needed, and indeed, the more we devlope math and science, the closer they get to the arts.

And Sarkhaan, :fluffle: to you too. ;)

It's unfortunate that he has to cut money to anything (especially the arts), but if it helps educate Americans better, I'm for it.

If the only jobs available to Americans in the future are going to be science or technology related (other than those in the service industries), this is a good move. With the rest of the world able to produce goods at a cheaper price than US based companies, it looks like we're heading in that direction.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in Bush supporting the increase of funding for science education?

Am I the only one who sees the irony in Bush supporting the increase of funding for science education?

Yes.....?:confused:

If the only jobs available to Americans in the future are going to be science or technology related (other than those in the service industries), this is a good move. With the rest of the world able to produce goods at a cheaper price than US based companies, it looks like we're heading in that direction.
It's highly doubtful that the only jobs in the US would ever be just science and technology.

Well, what do you guys think of this? Bush is trying to get this idea passed the senate...and from what I have read the only negatives to this are, as key democrats put it, " Bush is increasing federal math and science education spending while cutting overall discretionary spending on education by trimming money in areas such as the arts, parent-resource centers and drug-free schools."...to which I give a huge :rolleyes:

Seriously...are the arts, parent-resource centers and drug free schools anywhere near as important as a population who can compete and kick ass in math and science? Does anyone think these democrats are being a little stupid about this? I think its a great idea.
---------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Saturday urged the Senate to back increased government spending on basic scientific research.


The proposal is part of Bush's initiative to boost U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace through innovation. He also wants to train thousand of new science and math teachers and extend a popular tax credit businesses can receive for investing in research and development. The total price tag over 10 years would be $136 billion.

But Bush said in his weekly radio address that his proposals are vital for America to "remain an innovative nation that competes with confidence(bolded for agreement) and would help ensure that every U.S. child has the math and science skills needed for the jobs of the future.

Bush asks Senate to raise science spending (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060708/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush)
I think Bush could have benefitted from drugfree schools in his younger years.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. Of course bush knows what he is doing. It is all these stupid laberals out there who dont want the art budget cut because they know that art turns people gay, and the more gay people there are the more votes the laberals get. Can you actually name one artist who is not gay? We have got to get rid of all of these laberals, for being laberal. If they were half as smart as bush they would be in favor of more funding in math, and science that way when they get drafted in the army for the war in iran, they will know how many bullets go in a clip. That way they can fight better.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in Bush supporting the increase of funding for science education?
I never, ever expected to have to argue against an initiative to promote science. Bush has truly placed us all in Bizarro World.

It's highly doubtful that the only jobs in the US would ever be just science and technology.
But most of the good ones are and will continue to be.

Art does not heal the sick. Art does not make religion obsolete. Art does not connect the world through mass communication. Art does not produce more food than ever before in history.
Art is inconsequential next to science.

But most of the good ones are and will continue to be.

Art does not heal the sick. Art does not make religion obsolete. Art does not connect the world through mass communication. Art does not produce more food than ever before in history.
Art is inconsequential next to science.

Though a science guy I find this sort of statement hard to agree with...

But most of the good ones are and will continue to be.

Art does not heal the sick. Art does not make religion obsolete. Art does not connect the world through mass communication. Art does not produce more food than ever before in history.
Art is inconsequential next to science.
Art does not heal the sick. http://www.arttherapy.org/

Art does not make religion obsolete. http://www.atheists.org/christianity/fish.html

Art does not connect the world through mass communication. http://home.earthlink.net/~pchase/images/guernica6.3b.gif

Well, the last one is a bit harder. Yeah. That's pretty much in the realm of science and agriculture.

I never, ever expected to have to argue against an initiative to promote science. Bush has truly placed us all in Bizarro World.

The Devil is in the Details. Maybe Bush secretly intends to promote open-minded non-materialistic science, such as Intelligent Design.

Does the Universe make sense now?

Well, the last one is a bit harder. Yeah. That's pretty much in the realm of science and agriculture.
Actually I can help you on that one, the Ag College of my university has been talking with the art department about field shapes to help get the desert to bloom. Aparently the art department has a better grasp of space than the Ag kids.

Art does not heal the sick. http://www.arttherapy.org/
Merely science using art.
Art does not make religion obsolete. http://www.atheists.org/christianity/fish.html
No art has ever been as successful as Darwin.
Art does not connect the world through mass communication. http://home.earthlink.net/~pchase/images/guernica6.3b.gif
The only reason you're able to show that to me is because of science.
Well, the last one is a bit harder. Yeah. That's pretty much in the realm of science and agriculture.
These days, agriculture is science.

Don't get me wrong, art is a great pass time and I have nothing against the truly talented pursuing a career in the field.

Actually I can help you on that one, the Ag College of my university has been talking with the art department about field shapes to help get the desert to bloom. Aparently the art department has a better grasp of space than the Ag kids.
I’m sure any reasonably intelligent person could have answered the slack-jawed buffoons’ questions. It doesn't take an artist to grasp concepts that elude "Ag kids," in my experience, anyway.

Merely science using art.

No art has ever been as successful as Darwin.

The only reason you're able to show that to me is because of science.

These days, agriculture is science.

Don't get me wrong, art is a great pass time and I have nothing against the truly talented pursuing a career in the field.
1. Bullshit.
2. Oh, yeah. I forgot that Christianity completely gave up that fight against Darwin. They completely went the way of the pagans in the 19th century.
3. If you'll be my friend, I'll take you to a museum sometime. Museums trade art pieces.
4. Agriculture has always been a science.

Merely science using art.
And it's been showing that art and looking at people as people and not just bodies makes a remarkable difference in healing. It's not science using art, it's art and science working together.

No art has ever been as successful as Darwin.
And as they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words...

The only reason you're able to show that to me is because of science.
The only reason we have something to show is due to art.

I’m sure any reasonably intelligent person could have answered the slack-jawed buffoons’ questions. It doesn't take an artist to grasp concepts that elude "Ag kids," in my experience, anyway.
Then your experiance is wrong. Sorry.

And it's been showing that art and looking at people as people and not just bodies makes a remarkable difference in healing. It's not science using art, it's art and science working together.
Without science, we would not know these things. I don't see how seeing "people as people" has anything to do with art. That's just ethics.
And as they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words...

And?
The only reason we have something to show is due to art.
Okay, but it certainly is not as impressive, nor as uselful as an automobile or a polio vaccine.
Then your experiance is wrong. Sorry.
How can my experience be wrong? I’m around those sorts of people far more than I’d like.

Without science, we would not know these things. I don't see how seeing "people as people" has anything to do with art. That's just ethics.
No, not as such. Besides, someone needed to create the art in the first place.

And?
And more people have been infulanced by art than anything Darwin actually wrote.

Correctly or in correctly, art has power.

Okay, but it certainly is not as impressive, nor as uselful as an automobile or a polio vaccine.
Are you sure? Like I said, art tends to have profound infulance upon people because people are people. We LIKE art. Useful is in the eye of the holder, but I would argue that art can be far more impressive than either an auto or polio vaccine.

How can my experience be wrong? I’m around those sorts of people far more than I’d like.
Did you attend the University of Nevada, Reno? Did you get to read and listen to new ideas of space utlization for planting and farming in the high desert? Did you get to walk in the middle of a moving argument/discussion that was the two groups debating all over campus about it?

That was MY experiance.

Are you sure? Like I said, art tends to have profound infulance upon people because people are people. We LIKE art. Useful is in the eye of the holder, but I would argue that art can be far more impressive than either an auto or polio vaccine.

I've tried to sell useful but ugly cars in my past. It doesn't go well.

The arts is not just painting, sculpting, etc. The arts covers just about everything that is not directly science, technology, and math. This can be, and is, everything from band, drawing, English, foreign languages, humanities, history, etc. "The arts" is a shortened form of "the liberal arts" which does include everything that isn't science and math.

I just thought I would mention that science is about describing and understanding the universe and maths is the language it is done by. That means it includes the arts as well. The same can be said in reverse, which others have mentioned as well, as the arts are the creative part, the thinking outside the box.

Different sections of knowledge and learning should not be compromised for other sections, all areas need to be encouraged. The only reason I would support higher funding for science over the arts and maths is that it costs more to teach in general (there are exceptions to this on both sides). But that does not mean I support the reduction in funding for arts to provide more for science and maths.

I'm just curious about how a president who takes direction from God can be in any way honest about wanting to boost science education. He doesn't much listen to any of the science presented to him anyway, so what's his game here?

I'm just curious about how a president who takes direction from God can be in any way honest about wanting to boost science education. He doesn't much listen to any of the science presented to him anyway, so what's his game here?
Piss off liberals so they lose sight of more important issues in an election year?

Judging by the appalling spelling from many of the Americans here I would say that it is the arts, such as literature and literacy that need work before you start giving extra money to science. It's no good having a bunch of illiterate scientists.

And more people have been infulanced by art than anything Darwin actually wrote.

Correctly or in correctly, art has power.


Are you sure? Like I said, art tends to have profound infulance upon people because people are people. We LIKE art. Useful is in the eye of the holder, but I would argue that art can be far more impressive than either an auto or polio vaccine.

.

Neither can have profound influence without the other, an example: if the printing press had not been invented then the influence of stories and poetry would have been less. On the other hand the development of the printing press further would have been much slower if there was not a demand for the works it was printing (most of the books & literature produced has been fiction).

Another example is computers: One of the biggest driving forces in development of the hardware is the ever increasing demands that computer games have. But the other way is true also, the computer games could not be written and experienced if the hardware was not being developed.

The arts and science can not be seperated easily as they are intertwined and dependent on each other.

The greastest piece of art in my mind is the universe itself, as the most beutiful and influential things I have seen have been in the world around us.

During the physicsexams in the univesity of Copenhagen, the following quiestion was given the students: Describe how you can measure the height of a scyscraper by the aid of a barometer.

One of the students answered: You can tie a string to the barometer and lower it alongside the scyscraper. The height of the scyscraper is the length of the string pluss the length of the barometer.

The censorcommity failed the student, but the student complained. He had after all produced a correct answer, though he had not shown a great insight in physics, so they decided he was going to have a new go, he was going to get six minutes to explain the same.

For five minutes the student sat scribbling on a piece of paper, and the commity told him his time was running out. He the said: I have several answers to the question, but cannot decide:

- You could take the barometer to the top of the scyscraper, drop it, and measure the time it took for it to hit the ground. The height could then be calculated by H=0,5gxt2, but it would ruin the barometer.

- If the sun was shining you could measure the length of the barometershaddow and the length of the scyscrapershaddow. It would be simple arithmetic to calculate the height of the scyscraper with this method.

- If you wanted to do a fancy one, you'd tie a string to the barometer and use it as a pendulum, first at groudlevel then on the roof. The difference in gravity would tell you the height of the scyscraper by the formula T=2Pi2(1/g).

- If the scyscraper had an outside fire-escape, you could always see how many barometerheights you could produce from bottom to top

- If you wanted to to it the boring way, you'd measure the pressure on groundlevel and the pressure on the roof, then calculate the pressuredifference from millibars to meters

But since we are encouraged to always find new ways of solving problems, I'd go to the scyscrapers janitor, and give him the barometer in exchange for him telling me how high his scyscraper is.

The students name? Niels Bohr

Who says both arts and science is not needed?

Judging by the appalling spelling from many of the Americans here I would say that it is the arts, such as literature and literacy that need work before you start giving extra money to science. It's no good having a bunch of illiterate scientists.

Good point, though the Arts referred here means more like Fine Arts than basic literacy. Still, you are right that there are no scientists who don't know something about the Arts. Many scientists are prolific writers with good prose. Some are artists and musicians. Bottom line is people who cannot read or write well cannot do either Art or Science.

Piss off liberals so they lose sight of more important issues in an election year?
Ah, of course! When gay marriage isn't enough of a distraction, crawl back to education. This from a man who couldn't figure out that being a drunk was a bad idea until he turned forty. *sigh*

Neither can have profound influence without the other, an example: if the printing press had not been invented then the influence of stories and poetry would have been less.
*SNIP*

Not sure I agree with that. The oral tradition had been around for about 11,000 years prior to the press, and pictorial, ceremonial, and sculptural arts as well. The Greeks had poetry, music an drama and the means to pass them on orally or in written form. I think I'm just arguing semantics, though. The influence would have been the same, but the press made written records more available and durable, thus ensuring the tradition was there to draw upom in the future. Someone can still think art is rubbish whether it's passed on orally or made ubiquitous through print. I wouldn't trust that someone, but that's another thread.

Are you sure? Like I said, art tends to have profound infulance upon people because people are people. We LIKE art. Useful is in the eye of the holder, but I would argue that art can be far more impressive than either an auto or polio vaccine.

Sometimes cars can be art. The Jaguar E-Type (http://www.msmeet.com/Bildarkiv/Traffen04/original/etype4.JPG) is in the Smithsonian, and cars like the Bugatti Type 57 Atlantique (http://www.bugattipage.com/voitures/bugatti/gifsmall/atlansml.jpg), the Talbot Lago (http://www2.uol.com.br/bestcars/carros/classicos/talbot-lago-1938-2.jpg), or 300SL Gullwing (http://www.bergoiata.org/fe/voiture-roadster-60-80/Mercedes%20Gullwing%20300sl%201.jpg) could be considered works of art. (I saw a Talbot Lago auctioned off for $3.25 million...)

In the case of the Gullwing it's a great fussion of science and art. The cars chassis stiffining ran along where door hinges would normally be and puting a traditional door on the car would have comprimised its handling. So they hinged the doors off the top of the car, making a beautifully crafted and brilliantly engineered car.

Which is to say that if you take one over the other you run the risk of function without soul. Which is a boring world.

Ah, of course! When gay marriage isn't enough of a distraction, crawl back to education. This from a man who couldn't figure out that being a drunk was a bad idea until he turned forty. *sigh*
The danger in being a good drunk.

Not sure I agree with that. The oral tradition had been around for about 11,000 years prior to the press, and pictorial, ceremonial, and sculptural arts as well. The Greeks had poetry, music an drama and the means to pass them on orally or in written form. I think I'm just arguing semantics, though. The influence would have been the same, but the press made written records more available and durable, thus ensuring the tradition was there to draw upom in the future. Someone can still think art is rubbish whether it's passed on orally or made ubiquitous through print. I wouldn't trust that someone, but that's another thread.

I didn't mean that you can not have one without the other. What I meant to say is that they are much diminished without each other. You are correct that oral tradition had been around for ages but the printing press boosted the influence of the stories that were originally told orally. (As anaside: though you do miss out on the story tellers ability to make a story come alive by gesture and speech, though I suppose that is where movies come in)

Someone can think art is rubbish but that is their right as a beholder of the art. Though I believe people should not rubbish an entire area of knowledge and learning, but go piece by piece becasue they are bound to find something they can't rubbish.

I didn't mean that you can not have one without the other. What I meant to say is that they are much diminished without each other. You are correct that oral tradition had been around for ages but the printing press boosted the influence of the stories that were originally told orally. (As anaside: though you do miss out on the story tellers ability to make a story come alive by gesture and speech, though I suppose that is where movies come in)

Someone can think art is rubbish but that is their right as a beholder of the art. Though I believe people should not rubbish an entire area of knowledge and learning, but go piece by piece becasue they are bound to find something they can't rubbish.
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Neither can have profound influence without the other, an example: if the printing press had not been invented then the influence of stories and poetry would have been less. On the other hand the development of the printing press further would have been much slower if there was not a demand for the works it was printing (most of the books & literature produced has been fiction).

Another example is computers: One of the biggest driving forces in development of the hardware is the ever increasing demands that computer games have. But the other way is true also, the computer games could not be written and experienced if the hardware was not being developed.

The arts and science can not be seperated easily as they are intertwined and dependent on each other.

The greastest piece of art in my mind is the universe itself, as the most beutiful and influential things I have seen have been in the world around us.
Perfectly stated!

Personally I have always looked upon it this way, the arts are the soul, the sciences the body. Without the soul, the body is unable to actually create and live. Without the body, the soul cannot function. Both are needed and, indeed, work far better together than they do apart.

Which is why I'm a computer geek who teaches English, loves to read science texts, and goes home to see Shakespeare every summer. ;)

Perfectly stated!

Personally I have always looked upon it this way, the arts are the soul, the sciences the body. Without the soul, the body is unable to actually create and live. Without the body, the soul cannot function. Both are needed and, indeed, work far better together than they do apart.

Which is why I'm a computer geek who teaches English, loves to read science texts, and goes home to see Shakespeare every summer. ;)

I'm a fairly good horn player and a writer. I'm also a very fast learner in math, and science. And I love science enough that just this week, I went out and bought a copy of the Theory of Relativity, just to see what Einstein's thinking was about.

The danger in being a good drunk.
I knew there was something he was good at!

During the physicsexams in the univesity of Copenhagen, the following quiestion was given the students: Describe how you can measure the height of a scyscraper by the aid of a barometer.
<SNIP>
Who says both arts and science is not needed?

See, I love that. Who says math and science are not art in themselves, too? You can't have geometry without art. You can't have art without geometry. Music is math. Art is math. Science is math. Everyone's been saying this.

What they haven't been saying is that art doesn't need "teaching" the way science and math do. I support teaching some art, and absolutely exposing kids to art - but I don't think giving art the same time as math and science is necessary.

Additionally, if we stop teaching art in schools, art won't go away. People will never stop being artistic. If we stop teaching math and science in schools, people will stop learning them, and where will we be then!?

The issue is an important one, but throwing money at the problem is not the solution. The theory of evolution needs to be accepted as fact in classrooms across the country, as it is everywhere else. Stem cell research needs to be embraced in order to stay competitive in todays world.

You can't try to rejuvenate science at the same time as you block its progress at every turn. The money spent will only serve to train people in a stagnant science. The idea of training innovative people while blocking motivation is absurd. Is this legislation a good sign? Yes. Are the democrats a bunch of dumbasses for opposing it just to be obstinate? Yes. Will this solve any problems? No.

Oh, while I am spewing my wisdom, forget about string theory. It is worthless.

science is an art- what's wrong with these people? Ever been to the Met? even if you are uninformed about art it'll knock your socks off! the WHitney too- Art is Science and Science is Art.

Art is nothing but the creations of man! pure and simple! sometimes it has nothing to do with canvas!

Art, in my opinion is gay, and is something people can do in their free time.

Sigh...

Do you watch TV? Movies? Do you listen to music?

Do you enjoy these things?

Sigh...

Do you watch TV? Movies? Do you listen to music?

Do you enjoy these things?
But people can just do this without being exposed to it in schools or learning anything about the arts. They just get creative in their own time!

I think that's how the argument goes... I'm a little confused about the logic.

What's so "creative" about consuming media - listening to music, watching TV - any fool with eyes and ears can do that. It's singing and acting and writing and producing and directing that's creative.

What's so "creative" about consuming media - listening to music, watching TV - any fool with eyes and ears can do that. It's singing and acting and producing and directing that's creative.
So is making all those into torrents and spreading them to the masses.

What's so "creative" about consuming media - listening to music, watching TV - any fool with eyes and ears can do that. It's singing and acting and writing and producing and directing that's creative.
I think that was the point. If you enjoy watching or hearing somebodys creation, you usually offer the creator your support whether it is monetary or by sharing it.

But people can just do this without being exposed to it in schools or learning anything about the arts. They just get creative in their own time!

I think that's how the argument goes... I'm a little confused about the logic.
Yeah, garage bands, comics making fun of teachers, dirty jokes. I think that those things are aspects of student life that are not the result of schooling. Are you arguing that all creativity is the result of somebody shoving it into a child's head? Children develop creativity on their own to some extent, not because they read Hamlet.

Yeah, garage bands, comics making fun of teachers, dirty jokes. I think that those things are aspects of student life that are not the result of schooling. Are you arguing that all creativity is the result of somebody shoving it into a child's head? Children develop creativity on their own to some extent, not because they read Hamlet.

And you believe those things train and refine themselves?