NationStates Jolt Archive

How do you explain the general anti-intellectual attitude and academic apathy in the United States, especially for children in the school systems. Why do so many people have such a negative perception of learning? How can we fix this problem? Or do you disagree with this altogether? Let me know what you think.

I think I might try lemon muffins with blueberries in them next time. :)

How do you explain the general anti-intellectual attitude and academic apathy in the United States, especially for children in the school systems. Why do so many people have such a negative perception of learning? How can we fix this problem? Or do you disagree with this altogether? Let me know what you think.

Well in pop culture, school is for nerds.

Even though in real life, it's for the stupid people and preps and jocks.

I say we show schools in a better light on TV so kids will actually care about school, and perhaps better funding.

Because if you turn out in any way smart, the Bill O'Reilly crowd will end up attempting to defame you by saying you're part of the "intelligentsia."

I've never understood why that would be bad, but things are zany over there.

Those that like truthiness rather than truth (just for one example, creationists) dislike the idea that someone might prove them wrong, and will, thus, attack the intellectuals that can.

Mainly because we let stupid people talk.

Because if you turn out in any way smart, the Bill O'Reilly crowd will end up attempting to defame you by saying you're part of the "intelligentsia."

I've never understood why that would be bad, but things are zany over there.


Education makes people liberals, and thus they hate God. Thats the thinking.

Mainly because we let stupid people talk.

Or give them tenure.

Education makes people liberals, and thus they hate God. Thats the thinking.

Or pretty much that. Then again, mere hatred for what they can't fathom (in this case, education) would explain.

Or do you disagree with this altogether?

What have the intellectuals ever done for us?

What have the intellectuals ever done for us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology

For starters.

I don't think people are as antagonistic to learning per se as they are to the way we learn things.

And there's good reason for that.

Intellectuals are fun to wedgie. :)

Education makes people liberals, and thus they hate God. Thats the thinking.
Which is pretty funny, considering that one's likelihood to vote Republican goes up with the level of education that they possess (I believe grad school is an exception, but even they vote Right more than High School dropouts).

But most of the US isn't anti-intellectual, they're just apathetic. I'd explain further but, eh, whatever . . .

I don't think there's a problem with intellectuals, just a problem with people who tend to be an ass when they're really smart. It's like "*snort* You WOULD use that method, I however would..."

What have the intellectuals ever done for us?

Sir Isaac Newton did wonders for the cider industry when he discovered that you didn't need to pick apples from trees.

What have the intellectuals ever done for us?

Made civilization possible perhaps? Without the the first intelligent thinkers humans would still be living in caves.

No language, no art, no mathematics, no medicine, no machines, no religon, no culture.

Made civilization possible perhaps? Without the the first intelligent thinkers humans would still be living in caves.

No language, no art, no mathematics, no medicine, no machines, no religon, no culture.

Prove it. :)

There would be no aviation thats for sure. :)

Which is pretty funny, considering that one's likelihood to vote Republican goes up with the level of education that they possess (I believe grad school is an exception, but even they vote Right more than High School dropouts).

But most of the US isn't anti-intellectual, they're just apathetic. I'd explain further but, eh, whatever . . .

Well, I was going by Faux News' perspective. I heard on a show once, and this is paraphrasing it "These educated liberal sorts are tearing america apart. Its time that we stand for tradition, and not educated liberal ideology" It was sone lady speaking.

No language

:confused:

Made civilization possible perhaps? Without the the first intelligent thinkers humans would still be living in caves.
Intellectuals are made possible by Civilization, without the existence of a division of labor and a limited degree of social stability, one can't afford the time to think intelligently about things that aren't directly and immediatly neccessitated in the moment. And many innovations during the Industrial evolution were pioneered by tradesmen, not intellectuals, so they haven't got a monopoly on technology either.

I agree with the left about 'intellectuals'. Trotstyesque wreckers, the lot of them.

Well, I was going by Faux News' perspective. I heard on a show once, and this is paraphrasing it "These educated liberal sorts are tearing america apart. Its time that we stand for tradition, and not educated liberal ideology" It was sone lady speaking.

Some people will always despise liberalism and intelligence. QED, middle ages.

It's obvious. The school system completely sucks. Teachers can't keep the attention of the kids. Standards are always being lowered... I am one of the few people who pays attention in school. After about 6th grade, I learned just about everything I ever could learn from school. Everything else I ever learned was from my own studying. I still pay attention in school, but I never really learn anything that hasn't been taught before.

The American School system is crap, and it shows. There are high schoolers who can barely read, and can't even write a paragraph.

Plus, it doesn't exactly help that the same institution goes against all the American values that it teaches. That is something that has always bugged me.

There would be no aviation thats for sure. :)

Hate to say it, but Wilbur and Orville were bike mechanics...

...yes, I'm hurting my support for intellectuals with this comment. Shaddap.

Some people will always despise liberalism and intelligence. QED, middle ages.

...meanwhile, in the Muslim world during the European Middle Ages, liberalism and intellectualism were in bloom...

...meanwhile, in the Muslim world during the European Middle Ages, liberalism and intellectualism were in bloom...

...which gave us more advanced maths, commerce and other things...

...Which is also completely irrelevent to the topic at hand.

...which gave us more advanced maths, commerce and other things...

...and had pretty decent women's rights in some areas, especially in comparison to most of Europe...

...Which is also completely irrelevent to the topic at hand.

Relevance is overrated. :)

...and had pretty decent women's rights in some areas, especially in comparison to most of Europe...

...which included, but was not limited to, divorce...

(Can I be Huey? You'll be Dewey.) :D

How do you explain the general anti-intellectual attitude and academic apathy in the United States, especially for children in the school systems. Why do so many people have such a negative perception of learning? How can we fix this problem? Or do you disagree with this altogether? Let me know what you think.

Lessee:

America is the second in the world in percentage of people who attend higher education (37%).

America is the first in the world in years of schooling per capita.

And yet... Americans hate learning?

...which included, but was not limited to, divorce...

(Can I be Huey? You'll be Dewey.) :D

...in addition to tolerance within Islam, there was greater tolerance of other religions within Islamic countries...

Relevance is overrated. :)


Well, if you ,and everyone else can't even stay on a subject for more than a few posts, how does that make you any better than the apathetic, anti intellectual Americans you bash?

Looks like some kids have ADD. Lets pump them full of drugs to make them pay attention. >.>

Lessee:

America is the second in the world in percentage of people who attend higher education (37%).

America is the first in the world in years of schooling per capita.

And yet... Americans hate learning?

He wasn't claiming that, he was claiming that there is a mistrust of intellectuals, and it shows by the fact that the word has sometimes been used in an attempt to ATTACK someone.

Well, if you ,and everyone else can't even stay on a subject for more than a few posts, how does that make you any better than the apathetic, anti intellectual Americans you bash?

Looks like some kids have ADD. Lets pump them full of drugs to make them pay attention. >.>

Hey, don't talk about getting off-topic and then go on some sort of anti-medication tangent (not that I don't agree with you, but be consistent, for Pete's sake!).

How do you explain the general anti-intellectual attitude and academic apathy in the United States, especially for children in the school systems. Why do so many people have such a negative perception of learning? How can we fix this problem? Or do you disagree with this altogether? Let me know what you think.

Americans are being told all the time that Ivory-Tower Liberals think they're better than them and want to run the country because the common man is too stupid.

Until the liberals can start convincing Americans that being educated is good, we're going to get the same stupid bullshit.

...in addition to tolerance within Islam, there was greater tolerance of other religions within Islamic countries...

...than there was within Europe, that had institutions such as...

Well, if you ,and everyone else can't even stay on a subject for more than a few posts, how does that make you any better than the apathetic, anti intellectual Americans you bash?

Looks like some kids have ADD. Lets pump them full of drugs to make them pay attention. >.>

It's Lunatic Goofballs. He's supposed to do that.

And I have ADD, thank you very much, and the meds are actually working.

...than there was within Europe, that had institutions such as...

... the Spanish inquisition! I bet you weren't expecting that...

Well, if you ,and everyone else can't even stay on a subject for more than a few posts, how does that make you any better than the apathetic, anti intellectual Americans you bash?

Looks like some kids have ADD. Lets pump them full of drugs to make them pay attention. >.>

Who ever said I was any better than...

Ooh! A shiny object! *pounces!*

...than there was within Europe, that had institutions such as...
... the Spanish inquisition! I bet you weren't expecting that...

(didn't expect that :()
...who were working for THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, the highly insular kingdoms, and the Finham Green library, who charged me like £10 for a water-damaged copy of Consider Phlebas, organisations that not only discouraged other religious views, but...

(didn't expect that :()
...who were working for THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, the highly insular kingdoms, and the Finham Green library, who charged me like £10 for a water-damaged copy of Consider Phlebas, organisations that not only discouraged other religious views, but...

...also actively persecuted them AND scientists, which showed the anti-intellectualism rampant at the...

(I gotta go, can someone take over the Huey role?)

...also actively persecuted them AND scientists, which showed the anti-intellectualism rampant at the...
...heart of European society, a school of thought still present in much of the English-speaking world today. I'm Dewey, he's Huey, and you've been reading a thread on the internet. Good night.

...heart of European society, a school of thought still present in much of the English-speaking world today.

Ah, but simultaneously as it functioned as a tool of oppression the Church also acted as a bastion of the Classical tradition of intellectualism, both prior and post to contact with the preserved scholastic movement within the arab world.

How do you explain the general anti-intellectual attitude and academic apathy in the United States, especially for children in the school systems. Why do so many people have such a negative perception of learning? How can we fix this problem? Or do you disagree with this altogether? Let me know what you think.

It's a tradition with a long and glorious history for both the political left and right. For the left, it dates back to the days of the Gilded Age, when everyone who went to a college came back talking about how natural and wonderful the market was, even as it was effectively starving and enslaving large portions of the farming and labor classes. For the right, it traces back partly to the Second Great Awakening, when all the liberal educated freaks of the day started becoming radical abolitionists, and also to the Great Depression, when FDR turned his brain trust loose on our beloved free market system.

How do you explain the general anti-intellectual attitude and academic apathy in the United States, especially for children in the school systems. Why do so many people have such a negative perception of learning? How can we fix this problem? Or do you disagree with this altogether? Let me know what you think.

Well you should explain to children what will happen if they don't study (work around the clock, drug and alcohol problems, poverty, depression etc. not so much demonizing althought, not everyone who is poor hasn't be lazy at school). You should also start adding more information to entertaiment, not always dub foreign tv. shows and make children exited to get some information, not just train their body or voice in hope to make living out of that. I'm also still in school (14 years old) and try to do my best, after all, the better grades the better job I can get.

Well you should explain to children what will happen if they don't study (work around the clock, drug and alcohol problems, poverty, depression etc. not so much demonizing althought, not everyone who is poor hasn't be lazy at school).

But this does not engender increased love of learning.

It might engender increased willingness to learn, but, if anything, will make people resent education even more. After all, they will have the (correct) impression that it is being forced upon them.

Because you have taught people to see education merely as a means to an end, and because in doing so you have likely neglected making it enjoyable in itself (as, indeed, learning naturally is), you have created people who will tolerate, while resenting, the process of education up to the point where it is useful for them to make money, at which point they will neglect it for the rest of their lives.

That will not stop any anti-intellectual culture.

How do you explain the general anti-intellectual attitude and academic apathy in the United States, especially for children in the school systems.

It's tradition - like bringing the head lice home.

Its easyer to lie to a person who has not learned.

But this does not engender increased love of learning.

It might engender increased willingness to learn, but, if anything, will make people resent education even more. After all, they will have the (correct) impression that it is being forced upon them.

Because you have taught people to see education merely as a means to an end, and because in doing so you have likely neglected making it enjoyable in itself (as, indeed, learning naturally is), you have created people who will tolerate, while resenting, the process of education up to the point where it is useful for them to make money, at which point they will neglect it for the rest of their lives.

That will not stop any anti-intellectual culture.

I must admit you are right. Popularizing science could be one ( not so wise, but it might work) way and showing more interesting documents in free television channels. Another is that you make teaching more interesting, smaller classes and hire caring teachers. Encouraging people to look information from the books could help (and reading also fiction could help). Encouraging a person to be artist or writer is also important (rich culture helps intellectualism). Also, telling people what use there is to know things. Perhaps I forgotted writing that post that knowledge is power itself...

The US is anti-intellectual. Why else are they so militaristic? Why else do they say "those who can't do, teach" and why else did Bush try to make himself look less intelligent than 'intellectual' John Kerry in 2004?

...meanwhile, in the Muslim world during the European Middle Ages, liberalism and intellectualism were in bloom...
Thanks, I knew this thread didn't have enough about Muslims in it. :rolleyes:

The US is anti-intellectual. Why else are they so militaristic?

The two have nothing to do with one another. Indeed, intellectuals have always been warmongers, and quite considerably more than the common people in many cases.

The problem is the students, usually. From what i've seen, the kids who do thier homework and pay attention almost always do well. The kids who blow off homewrok and go get drunk flunk. It's not the teachers, its the kids.

It's not the teachers, its the kids.

And if the proportions differ depending on the method and skill of the teacher?

How do you explain the general anti-intellectual attitude and academic apathy in the United States, especially for children in the school systems. Why do so many people have such a negative perception of learning? How can we fix this problem? Or do you disagree with this altogether? Let me know what you think.

Because education has a liberal bias. We know this because the more educated a person becomes the more liberal they become. If liberalism is bad then education must be bad. It is to liberalsim what smoking is to cancer.

This is less facetious than it sounds. Every time you hear people complaining about educators, even if they're complaining about educators complaining about their working conditions, you will almost always hear a complaint about teachers having a liberal bias. And don't get me started on Conservatives' views on colleges.

Back in the 30's and 40's there were a slew of anti-intellectual movies about characters that became educated, were the hopes of their working class families to make it big, and then the guy becomes a Communist. Such movies were full of long speeches about how it doesn't do a man any good become educated if "he forgets what's important" or "looses his soul."

Being Conservative is about being afraid of change. New ideas that change things almost always come from people who are educated.

The two have nothing to do with one another. Indeed, intellectuals have always been warmongers, and quite considerably more than the common people in many cases.

And you know this because, not being an intellectual, you study history with your gut?

It's a tradition with a long and glorious history for both the political left and right. For the left, it dates back to the days of the Gilded Age, when everyone who went to a college came back talking about how natural and wonderful the market was, even as it was effectively starving and enslaving large portions of the farming and labor classes. For the right, it traces back partly to the Second Great Awakening, when all the liberal educated freaks of the day started becoming radical abolitionists, and also to the Great Depression, when FDR turned his brain trust loose on our beloved free market system.

But the tradition has been abandoned on the left. It doesn't "date back" to the gilded age. It appeared in the gilded age. Since then American Liberalism has prompted as many people as possible to go to College. Even those for whom it will be of little benifit.

The two have nothing to do with one another. Indeed, intellectuals have always been warmongers, and quite considerably more than the common people in many cases.
I'm not saying that they're mutually exclusive, but often the intellectual would search for a peaceful solution, while the fool uses violence as a first resort.

Since we've already established that Europe is generally more intellectual-friendly, notice that Europe is also more peaceful.

The two have nothing to do with one another. Indeed, intellectuals have always been warmongers, and quite considerably more than the common people in many cases.

I would say that the ones in power are normally the warmongers rather than the intellectuals.

I think it boils down to some very basic human instinct. The intelligent are envied by the dim masses, yet the dim masses have the advantage of numbers. Imagine being ostracized because you can get the answers in math class, as an elementary schooler, you can't handle that.

It tends to go away with tracking in middle and high school though. The school system ensures that you're always with people on essentially the same intellectual par as you are. Or perhaps that's just been my experience... Arlington is perhaps the intelligentsia's hometown, so disregard my observations.

How do you explain the general anti-intellectual attitude and academic apathy in the United States, especially for children in the school systems. Why do so many people have such a negative perception of learning? How can we fix this problem? Or do you disagree with this altogether? Let me know what you think.

Woah Woah Woah?!?!?! Did somebody day "School"? In the US? Well I think that its the culture and the media, and I read a book that some characteristics like this are genetic but the environment part of it too. Plus I've read in newsweek that the way schools teach frustrates kids and gets them to hate education altogether.

How do you explain the general anti-intellectual attitude and academic apathy in the United States, especially for children in the school systems. Why do so many people have such a negative perception of learning? How can we fix this problem? Or do you disagree with this altogether? Let me know what you think.

To answer the second question first, American schools aren't actually teaching students how to learn; they're teaching students how to regurgitate information onto a standardized test. Especially with "No Child Left Behind," the focus has narrowed so much onto the "fill in the bubbles" type tests that it's no wonder kids hate school. And that's not to mention the consequences of not challenging kids to think outside the box, to think critically, and to think creatively--what do you think will happen to someone who has only ever been taught to repeat what s/he's been told?

Add that to the sorry state of funding for education, the too-high teacher to student ratios (especially in the poorer districts where students need more attention, not less), and it's one hell of a mess.

As to the anti-intellectualism in the USA, especially as displayed by the Right, I can only repeat what my English teacher and mentor told me, "Liberal is what happens when you get educated." Granted, this gets into the whole chicken-egg debate about whether education causes liberalism or whether liberals are more likely to achieve higher levels of education (especially in the humanities and arts). However, the fact remains that the more educated an individual is, the more likely that person is to be a liberal.

To answer the second question first, American schools aren't actually teaching students how to learn; they're teaching students how to regurgitate information onto a standardized test. Especially with "No Child Left Behind," the focus has narrowed so much onto the "fill in the bubbles" type tests that it's no wonder kids hate school. And that's not to mention the consequences of not challenging kids to think outside the box, to think critically, and to think creatively--what do you think will happen to someone who has only ever been taught to repeat what s/he's been told?

Add that to the sorry state of funding for education, the too-high teacher to student ratios (especially in the poorer districts where students need more attention, not less), and it's one hell of a mess.

As to the anti-intellectualism in the USA, especially as displayed by the Right, I can only repeat what my English teacher and mentor told me, "Liberal is what happens when you get educated." Granted, this gets into the whole chicken-egg debate about whether education causes liberalism or whether liberals are more likely to achieve higher levels of education (especially in the humanities and arts). However, the fact remains that the more educated an individual is, the more likely that person is to be a liberal.

Are you sure? People can be well educated and can be either liberal or conservative like any other person. In fact I think the more educated one is the more centrist s/he will likely become.

I would say that the ones in power are normally the warmongers rather than the intellectuals.

It's tough to stay in power long enough to conduct a war without being intelligent.

Are you sure? People can be well educated and can be either liberal or conservative like any other person. In fact I think the more educated one is the more centrist s/he will likely become.

Might be (emphasis on might), but centrist in relation to the WORLD, which is liberal in the US.

Are you sure? People can be well educated and can be either liberal or conservative like any other person. In fact I think the more educated one is the more centrist s/he will likely become.

Fairly. My parents are both college-level educators in the Arts, so I've been around lots and lots of college faculty, mostly from the Arts and Humanities. While none of them are the radical left type, most of them are fairly liberal.

And a study: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

I also think it depends a lot on where your interest/major lies. A person with an MBA is going to be more conservative than a person with a PhD in philosophy. That's not to say that there will never be an English professor who supports Pres. Bush, or an economics professor who supports Sen. Feingold, but it's much less likely to happen.

And you know this because, not being an intellectual, you study history with your gut?

No. If I did, I would make the unwise equation between "intellectual" and "brilliant fellow capable of solving everything" as many on this thread seem to.

I'm not saying that they're mutually exclusive, but often the intellectual would search for a peaceful solution, while the fool uses violence as a first resort.

Since when are "intellectual" and "fool" mutually exclusive? For that matter, since when are "intelligent" and "foolish" mutually exclusive?

The fact remains that intellectuals have consistently throughout history served the role as propagandists for the state machine, and have apologized for the most absurd and vicious actions by the leaders. It takes a lot of education and intelligence to argue sensibly, for instance, that the current Iraq War has been a success. It takes even more to convince anyone of this. (Incidentally, opposition to withdrawal from Vietnam, contrary to popular belief, was always highest among the most educated.)

People forget how many intellectuals supported the Nazis, and how many intellectuals apologized for Stalin's crimes, and how many intellectuals manage to justify the worst kinds of extremism on the flimsiest of bases.

Since we've already established that Europe is generally more intellectual-friendly,

We have? Actually, I doubt it. If there's a significant difference it's just over religion.

notice that Europe is also more peaceful.

Because Europe is less powerful. And because European culture has more ingrained anti-war sentiment; that's what happens after slaughtering each other for centuries.

I would say that the ones in power are normally the warmongers rather than the intellectuals.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that those in power are warmongers tends to make many of the intellectuals warmongers, and vice versa.

The neoconservative movement in the US, for instance, is almost entirely made up of intellectuals. No one else could possibly believe that destroying Iraq would set off a chain reaction of liberal democracy in the Middle East.

It's tough to stay in power long enough to conduct a war without being intelligent.

And it's tough to stay in power at all without people to construct justifications for you - however absurd.

The best propagandists are always intellectuals; they are the only people who can effectively convince themselves of the most absurd things, and then proceed to convince others of the same.

Hate to say it, but Wilbur and Orville were bike mechanics...

...yes, I'm hurting my support for intellectuals with this comment. Shaddap.

One does not necessarily have to be in academia to be "Intellectual" granted many end up there but some very bright people slip through the gaps

Plus I've read in newsweek that the way schools teach frustrates kids and gets them to hate education altogether.

HELL. YES.

God, the teaching sucks SO MUCH BALLS!!!!!!

Nobody can pay attention, even when I'm on my meds I have trouble keeping awake!

Many schools don't take the damn time to teach and so if a kid fails, it's basically "u=phail" and nothing else. That's why standards are also getting lowered by the minute, nobody's learning anything and then failing. :headbang:

Yeah. My French class is an example of what Pancake was talking about. I just survive because I was taught to work with the system, and not try to kill it.

Mainly because we let stupid people talk.

Andaluciae, ftw.
The internet called. You won.

Yeah. My French class is an example of what Pancake was talking about. I just survive because I was taught to work with the system, and not try to kill it.

I want to kill it. :(

Which is pretty funny, considering that one's likelihood to vote Republican goes up with the level of education that they possess (I believe grad school is an exception, but even they vote Right more than High School dropouts).

But most of the US isn't anti-intellectual, they're just apathetic. I'd explain further but, eh, whatever . . .

And there was me thinking it went up with the money they got paid.

Although I do truly love the fact that you guys like to pretend you've got
a left wing party and a right wing party.
Its so silly it always makes me giggle

Question: Why is the U.S. becoming more and more anti-intellectual?

Answer: Because Homo-Sapians are inherently stupid.

/end thread

Don't worry about it, we (America) had our run, and I'd say in maybe half a century at the earliest to a full century at the latest, our glory days will be over and China will be the world's unsurpassed superpower. It's ok, it happens to everyone. It happened to the UK, Spain, Portugal, the Romans, etc. and now it's going to happen to us.

Answer: Because Homo-Sapians are inherently stupid.

Are intellectuals members of homo sapiens?

Are intellectuals members of homo sapiens?

No, those are just the species that spell well.

Question: Why is the U.S. becoming more and more anti-intellectual?

Answer: Because Homo-Sapians are inherently stupid.

/end thread

If I was a god fearing proper american

I would cry out against this slur

Americans are not inhera... inherin .... stupid

and they aint no homo's either

If I was a god fearing proper american

I would cry out against this slur

Americans are not inhera... inherin .... stupid

and they aint no homo's either

Win. :D

...than there was within Europe, that had institutions such as...

Universities and monasticism, which gave us such thinkers as Roger Bacon, Copernicus, and Keppler.

The problem is the students, usually. From what i've seen, the kids who do thier homework and pay attention almost always do well. The kids who blow off homewrok and go get drunk flunk. It's not the teachers, its the kids.

QFT.

Doesn't help us much when we call home, send home letters, talk to parents at open school events and they tell us either, "They're your problem from 8-3," or, "What do you want from me, I can't make him get off the internet...."

I wish I had a camera when I told one parent who told me that, "Then move the computer out of his room or cancel your internet account."

It is part of the religious movement in the US, and the conservative movement.

QFT.

Doesn't help us much when we call home, send home letters, talk to parents at open school events and they tell us either, "They're your problem from 8-3," or, "What do you want from me, I can't make him get off the internet...."

I wish I had a camera when I told one parent who told me that, "Then move the computer out of his room or cancel your internet account."

Home environment, friends , neighbourhood all count

But teachers have to take a share of the responsibility
you only have to look at results from similar classes with different teachers
in tests to know teachers have some pretty major input into success or failure.

I remember there were 3 classes all doing science at the same level in my school, each had a different teacher.
The one I had what was considered the best of the lot and not one of them
failed the exam for that subject, including those who could barely read.

The second of those 3 classes had a failure rate of about 10%
and the third had about 40%.

These classes had not been streamed for ability and were all taking the same
exam, the exams were marked by external examiners who had nothing to
do with the school and they had no idea what persons paper they were
marking never mind what teacher they had had.
On top of that the pupils were all from roughly the same socio-economic background. As it was a fee paying school.

For those who care about gender issues
the best and worst were both female
the middle one was male

The pupils were all male.

It is part of the religious movement in the US, and the conservative movement.

Surely they are more the symptom than the cause

Because if you turn out in any way smart, the Bill O'Reilly crowd will end up attempting to defame you by saying you're part of the "intelligentsia."

I've never understood why that would be bad, but things are zany over there.

Brother, you said a mouthful. AM radio is all I can pick up on long trips (and in North Dakota, there are no short trips), so I get to listen to talk raidio in order to hear the neocon talking points and all the parrots calling in to egg on the host and all the call screeners making sure only idiots from the other side get on so that they're easily dismissed. It's depressing.

...meanwhile, in the Muslim world during the European Middle Ages, liberalism and intellectualism were in bloom...

Yeah, I know. What the hell happened?

The belief that everyone has the right to have an opinion has mutated into the false belief that everyone's opinion is equally valid.

Therefore the opinion of the educated and/or intelligent (by no means always the same thing) no longer has any special weight since a broad cross-section of society has come to believe, is indeed encouraged to believe in some quarters, that their opinion is as least as important no matter how fundamentally ill-informed.

Lessee:

America is the second in the world in percentage of people who attend higher education (37%).

America is the first in the world in years of schooling per capita.

And yet... Americans hate learning?


DUDE! AMERICA HAS A LOWER LITERAY RATE THAN CUBA!

It's not going to school, or how long you go to school it's the quality of education and the culture's valuing of learning. How many people out there are actually PROUD of the fact that they don't read books?

uh... yeah that would be LITERACY

Surely they are more the symptom than the cause

Chicken and the egg...

How do you explain the general anti-intellectual attitude and academic apathy in the United States, especially for children in the school systems. Why do so many people have such a negative perception of learning? How can we fix this problem? Or do you disagree with this altogether? Let me know what you think.

There was an intellectual attitude in the United States before ?? :eek:

Intellectuals are fun to wedgie. :)
Who isn't fun to wedgie?
Relevance is overrated. :)
Relevence is irrelevant. You will be assimi....oops.
I want to kill it. :(
As well you should.

And as many people have said, smart people are liberal, liberals are teh evil and want to take your guns, ergo smart people are teh evil.

And as many people have said, smart people are liberal, liberals are teh evil and want to take your guns, ergo smart people are teh evil.
and you actually believe that? wow.

How do you explain the general anti-intellectual attitude and academic apathy in the United States, especially for children in the school systems. Why do so many people have such a negative perception of learning? How can we fix this problem? Or do you disagree with this altogether? Let me know what you think.

Proof and definition please.

What is "anti-intellectual"? Who is? Where? Which part of the US? Examples? Are you talking about the general attitude of black youth who view learning as "being white"? Or are you talking about people who want to push creationism?

Are you talking about the upper middle class students who are pushing so hard to get an MBA that they're willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get that degree?

Please clarify.

Proof and definition please.

What is "anti-intellectual"? Who is? Where? Which part of the US? Examples? Are you talking about the general attitude of black youth who view learning as "being white"? Or are you talking about people who want to push creationism?

Are you talking about the upper middle class students who are pushing so hard to get an MBA that they're willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get that degree?

Please clarify.

By anti-intellecualism, I'm referring to the fact that most people dislike learning for it's own sake, and they distrust those who do. There is a huge lack of intellectual curiousity in this country.

The problem isn't limited to any one demographic. It's everywhere in the US. You mentioned black youth "acting white." I believe this is part of the problem. But people of every race do this very thing towards people who enjoy learning. We are labeled "overachievers", "nerds", or "elitists." It is similar in every way to "acting white."

Examples are everywhere you look. It's such a pervasive problem that we are blind to it. I'm at a state university, and I hear people saying things that I thought I'd stop hearing in high school. For instance, I recently heard a girl say to one of her friends, "Why would you talk to the professor? The professor is the enemy." Another example that I hear quite often is, "Why are we learning this? I'm never going to use this again."

I think the problem comes from three sources: our culture, our school systems, and our parents.

"Nerd" is a commonly used stereotype in pop-culture. Kids are conditioned to avoid being a nerd. Instead the smooth-talking funny guy or the beautiful prima-donna are the characters that our youth aspire to become. In reality, it doesn't have to be such a binary choice. I play intramural sports, spend plenty of time goofing off with my friends, yet still find the time to enjoy learning about something new. Yet well-rounded people rarely make interesting pop-culture icons. Kids model their behavior based on lessons they learn on TV, and it so happens that the smart kids are the ones that get picked on in our culture.

Our school systems are a completely separate conundrum. I don't know where to start on this, but one of the problems is "studying to the test." At least in Michigan, the way money is appropriated to public schools is by scores on a standardized test called the MEAP. Our curriculum was founded upon teaching students to do well on the MEAP. There are many problems like this, which I'll let you argue for or against. But I believe the heart of the problem is that kids have the wrong views on why they are in school. They think they are there because they have to be, or so they can get a high-paying job and be rich and have great things; or so they can get perfect grades so they can get into Harvard. These are all unhealthy views of learning. Instead learning should be viewed as a way of enriching your life, or further, as the very purpose of life itself. Teaching basic philosophy at an early age may seem radical, but I think that it is important for our children to know "why?".

The final problem is that of the values modeled by our parents. I don't know much about Japanese culture, but I do know that they have strong family values. Take a look at their society, they have one of the best technology sectors in the world. They have a curiousity towards life that leads to all kinds of innovations. Kids need to grow up in an environment that fosters this type of curiousity, and this burden falls on the parents.

Being intellectual is less of a lifestyle and more of an attitude. Being intellectual doesnt mean spending every waking hour in the library or being a member of MENSA. It means opening your mind to the fact the experiences and opportunities around us to enrich our life.

Well, I was going by Faux News' perspective. I heard on a show once, and this is paraphrasing it "These educated liberal sorts are tearing america apart. Its time that we stand for tradition, and not educated liberal ideology" It was sone lady speaking.

OK, there's your problem. Don't ever take one person's idiot ramblings as a generally applicable principle for all members of a society, especially when that idiot was rambling on Faux News. Consider the context. The lady was for "tradition" and against "educated liberals," and she was deliberately placed on camera by the Bush administration's (ostensibly) independently operated propaganda machine. By "tradition" she obviously meant "European colonial tradition," as opposed to the numerous other traditions comprising this country, and by "educated liberals" she obviously meant "people who disagree with me," which is pretty broad considering that even dumb liberals and some educated right-wingers find her stance repulsive. She might be educated herself, she might be a parrot squawking out whatever she's been trained to say, but whether she's conscious of it or not, her aim is to provide a banner of authority for the dumb conservatives to rally under. "We saw this lady sayin' it on that thar tee-vee! Gawd bless 'Murica!"

So I'm not sure I agree that there's an anti-intellectual trend in the US. The majority of people in the US aren't very intellectual, but it seems to me that most of us want to be and will pretend to be so whenever we think we can get away with it. And when we are afraid that we can't pull it off, we utilize the default strategy of trying to bring everyone down to our level, which certainly isn't a strategy unique to Americans.

By anti-intellecualism, I'm referring to the fact that most people dislike learning for it's own sake, and they distrust those who do. There is a huge lack of intellectual curiousity in this country.

The problem isn't limited to any one demographic. It's everywhere in the US. You mentioned black youth "acting white." I believe this is part of the problem. But people of every race do this very thing towards people who enjoy learning. We are labeled "overachievers", "nerds", or "elitists." It is similar in every way to "acting white."

Examples are everywhere you look. It's such a pervasive problem that we are blind to it. I'm at a state university, and I hear people saying things that I thought I'd stop hearing in high school. For instance, I recently heard a girl say to one of her friends, "Why would you talk to the professor? The professor is the enemy." Another example that I hear quite often is, "Why are we learning this? I'm never going to use this again."

I think the problem comes from three sources: our culture, our school systems, and our parents.

"Nerd" is a commonly used stereotype in pop-culture. Kids are conditioned to avoid being a nerd. Instead the smooth-talking funny guy or the beautiful prima-donna are the characters that our youth aspire to become. In reality, it doesn't have to be such a binary choice. I play intramural sports, spend plenty of time goofing off with my friends, yet still find the time to enjoy learning about something new. Yet well-rounded people rarely make interesting pop-culture icons. Kids model their behavior based on lessons they learn on TV, and it so happens that the smart kids are the ones that get picked on in our culture.

Our school systems are a completely separate conundrum. I don't know where to start on this, but one of the problems is "studying to the test." At least in Michigan, the way money is appropriated to public schools is by scores on a standardized test called the MEAP. Our curriculum was founded upon teaching students to do well on the MEAP. There are many problems like this, which I'll let you argue for or against. But I believe the heart of the problem is that kids have the wrong views on why they are in school. They think they are there because they have to be, or so they can get a high-paying job and be rich and have great things; or so they can get perfect grades so they can get into Harvard. These are all unhealthy views of learning. Instead learning should be viewed as a way of enriching your life, or further, as the very purpose of life itself. Teaching basic philosophy at an early age may seem radical, but I think that it is important for our children to know "why?".

The final problem is that of the values modeled by our parents. I don't know much about Japanese culture, but I do know that they have strong family values. Take a look at their society, they have one of the best technology sectors in the world. They have a curiousity towards life that leads to all kinds of innovations. Kids need to grow up in an environment that fosters this type of curiousity, and this burden falls on the parents.

Being intellectual is less of a lifestyle and more of an attitude. Being intellectual doesnt mean spending every waking hour in the library or being a member of MENSA. It means opening your mind to the fact the experiences and opportunities around us to enrich our life.

It's a problem in the military as well.

Last night, I was at the local range, test firing my newest suppressor, and started talking to one of the young ladies who works there, and couldn't believe what she said to me.

She is a current university ROTC cadet, a senior, due to graduate and be commissioned into the Army in May. She said she's been branch assigned to Military Intelligence.

I'm teach a course at the same school, a History of the U.S. Army class. So, knowing that she's in ROTC, I asked her if she had taken the class.

She said that she was taking it next semester.

Then she goes on to bitch about having to take the class. She says she tried getting out of it, for the last several years. She says that there's nothing in the contract she signed requiring her to take any U.S. Army history class, and she's upset because they are "forcing" her to take the class. That's why she's taking it in the last semester she's here, because she's been hoping they'd let her avoid taking it.

I asked her if she ever heard the saying that those who failed to study history are doomed to repeat it. She said she had, but that she didn't like history, and didn't feel that U.S. Army history was important. (For an officer in the U.S. Army, it's not important?)

I then asked if she ever read Sun Tzu's Art of War. No. I told her that Sun Tzu has been studied for thousands of years, because the things he said are ageless, including the rule to know yourself, as well as the enemy.

I told her I was going to give her a copy of Sun Tzu to read. She said to make sure it was an audiotape, because she hates to read.

How in the FUCK does she think she'll be a successful U.S. Army Intelligence officer if she hates to read, hasn't read Sun Tzu at all, and has no desire, whatsoever, to learn U.S. Army history?

I was dumbfounded! I know enough to know that Military Intelligence officers have to read a lot of briefings, slides, reports, etc. Is she going to decide she doesn't like to read, and just ignore most of the stuff, thereby missing important info like how and why our enemies and potential enemies fight?

How is she going to be able to really form an intelligent opinion about possible and likely courses of action if she refuses to study the basics of military strategic and tactical thinking? If she doesn't know Sun Tzu, Guderian, von Clausewitz, or Napolean, to name a few, how is she going to understand how their theories impact the thought process of her opponent?

If she doesn't know U.S. Army history, how would she know how much history and tradition affect the soldiers in the Army? Or how much the history and tradition affect our reputation as a fighting organization? Or how the previous battles, and the lessons learned from them, have affected how we fight today?

I was absolutely stunned that this young lady could not see how this stuff is important. I feel sorry for the soldiers and NCO's of her future units. I feel sorry for the commanders of those units, as they will be relying on this young woman for advice on how to conduct their operations, and she has no idea how things like history and reading the timeless tacticians and strategians affect her ability to do her job.

Yeah, I know. What the hell happened?

The Mongols happened. See Battle of Baghdad (1258) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(1258))

Long story short, the unified Abbasid caliphate that had ruled for 500 years was obliterated, 800,000 people were killed including the caliph, Al-Musta'sim, the entire Hashashin order, the Muslim clergy, and the scholars. The Library of Baghdad was utterly destroyed, a loss on par with that of the Library of Alexandria, which set back intellectual progress by centuries. The Muslim world never recovered from the Mongol invasion; neither politically, culturally, or intellectually.

The Mongols happened. See Battle of Baghdad (1258) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(1258))

Long story short, the unified Abbasid caliphate that had ruled for 500 years was obliterated, 800,000 people were killed including the caliph, Al-Musta'sim, the entire Hashashin order, the Muslim clergy, and the scholars. The Library of Baghdad was utterly destroyed, a loss on par with that of the Library of Alexandria, which set back intellectual progress by centuries. The Muslim world never recovered from the Mongol invasion; neither politically, culturally, or intellectually.

The Mongols also sacked every Hashashin stronghold across the Middle East, and killed every defender and their families.

Relevence is irrelevant. You will be assimi....oops.

We are the dyslexics of Borg. Futility is resistant. Your ass will be laminated.

*snip for brevity*

I was absolutely stunned that this young lady could not see how this stuff is important. I feel sorry for the soldiers and NCO's of her future units. I feel sorry for the commanders of those units, as they will be relying on this young woman for advice on how to conduct their operations, and she has no idea how things like history and reading the timeless tacticians and strategians affect her ability to do her job.

I met a few like that in college. Odds are, once her leadership figures out she's a clueless wonder, she'll most likely be assigned a "never advance" position where she has no mission critical tasks and little authority.

There was an intellectual attitude in the United States before ?? :eek:

Believe it or not at one time people like the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison, and Albert Einstein were like minor celebrities. Nowadays most folks probably can't name even one scientist or inventor.

Has anyone ever read the section in the late Carl Sagan's book, The Demon Haunted World, where he reprints replies he recieved on an article on America's poor math and science education? Some people wrote back that the problem is that God isn't central to our educational system. Others said "so what if other countries are better at math and science?" Their reasoning was that we're better at sports, or our kids have a social life, or "they'll make the parts stuff and we'll just buy what we need" as if wealth didn't come from invention and manufacturing.

After reading that I realized we're fucked.

Here's a list of some of the responses.
1)Not a Americans are stupid We just rank lower in school big deal

2)Maybe that’s good that we are not as smart as other countries. So then we can just import all of our products and then we don’t have to spend our money on the parts for the goods.
And if other countries are doing better, what does it matter, their most likely going to come over the U.S. anyway?

3)Our society is doing just fine with what discoveries we are making. It’s going slowly, but the cure for cancer is coming right along.

4)The U.S. has its own learning system and it may not be as advanced as theirs, but it is just as good. Otherwise I think your article is a very educating one.

5)Not one kid in this school likes science. I really didn’t understand the point of the article. I thought it was very boreing. I’m just not into anything like that.

6)I am studying to be a lawyer and frankly I do agree with my parents when they say I have an attitude problem toward science.

7)It’s true that some American kids don’t try, but we could be smarter than any other country if we wanted to.

8)Instead of homework, kids will watch TV. I have to agree that I do it. I have to cut down from about 4 hrs. a day.

9)I don’t believe it’s the school systems fault, I think the whole country is brought up with not enough emphasis on school. I know my mom would rather be watching me play basketball or soccer, instead of helping me with an assignment. Most of the kids I know could care less about doing there work right.

10)I don’t think American kids are stupid. It just they don’t study hard enough because most of kids work… Lots of people said that Asian people are smarter than American and they are good at everything, but that’s not true. They are not good at sports. They don’t have time to play sports.
I’m in sports myself, and I feel the other kids on my team push you to excel more in that sport than in school.

11)If we want to rank first, we could all go to school all day and not have any social life.

12)I can see why a lot of science teachers would get mad at you for insulting there job.

13)Maybe if the teachers could be more exciting, the children will want to learn… if science is made to be fun, kids will want to learn. To accomplish this, it needs to be started early on, not just taught as facts and figures.

14)I really find it hard to believe those facts about the U.S. in science. If we are so far behind, how come Michael Gorbachev came to Minnesota and Montana to Control Data to see how we run are computers and thing?

15)Around 33 hours for fifth graders! In my opinion thats almost as many hours as a full job practically. So instead of homework we can be making money.

16)When you put down how far behind we are in science and math, why don’t you try tell us this in a little nicer manner? … Have a little pride in your country and its capabilities.

17)I think your facts were inconclusive and your evidence very flimsy. All in all, you raised a good point.

By anti-intellecualism, I'm referring to the fact that most people dislike learning for it's own sake, and they distrust those who do. There is a huge lack of intellectual curiousity in this country.

The problem isn't limited to any one demographic. It's everywhere in the US. You mentioned black youth "acting white." I believe this is part of the problem. But people of every race do this very thing towards people who enjoy learning. We are labeled "overachievers", "nerds", or "elitists." It is similar in every way to "acting white."

Examples are everywhere you look. It's such a pervasive problem that we are blind to it. I'm at a state university, and I hear people saying things that I thought I'd stop hearing in high school. For instance, I recently heard a girl say to one of her friends, "Why would you talk to the professor? The professor is the enemy." Another example that I hear quite often is, "Why are we learning this? I'm never going to use this again."

I think the problem comes from three sources: our culture, our school systems, and our parents.

"Nerd" is a commonly used stereotype in pop-culture. Kids are conditioned to avoid being a nerd. Instead the smooth-talking funny guy or the beautiful prima-donna are the characters that our youth aspire to become. In reality, it doesn't have to be such a binary choice. I play intramural sports, spend plenty of time goofing off with my friends, yet still find the time to enjoy learning about something new. Yet well-rounded people rarely make interesting pop-culture icons. Kids model their behavior based on lessons they learn on TV, and it so happens that the smart kids are the ones that get picked on in our culture.

Our school systems are a completely separate conundrum. I don't know where to start on this, but one of the problems is "studying to the test." At least in Michigan, the way money is appropriated to public schools is by scores on a standardized test called the MEAP. Our curriculum was founded upon teaching students to do well on the MEAP. There are many problems like this, which I'll let you argue for or against. But I believe the heart of the problem is that kids have the wrong views on why they are in school. They think they are there because they have to be, or so they can get a high-paying job and be rich and have great things; or so they can get perfect grades so they can get into Harvard. These are all unhealthy views of learning. Instead learning should be viewed as a way of enriching your life, or further, as the very purpose of life itself. Teaching basic philosophy at an early age may seem radical, but I think that it is important for our children to know "why?".

The final problem is that of the values modeled by our parents. I don't know much about Japanese culture, but I do know that they have strong family values. Take a look at their society, they have one of the best technology sectors in the world. They have a curiousity towards life that leads to all kinds of innovations. Kids need to grow up in an environment that fosters this type of curiousity, and this burden falls on the parents.

Being intellectual is less of a lifestyle and more of an attitude. Being intellectual doesnt mean spending every waking hour in the library or being a member of MENSA. It means opening your mind to the fact the experiences and opportunities around us to enrich our life.

I'm impressed with your understanding of life. Unfortunately, you're not the president of the United States.

I'm impressed with your understanding of life. Unfortunately, you're not the president of the United States.

More's the pity. The current one isn't terribly intellectual, either. I wonder how he's going to get through all 96 pages of the Baker Commission Report.

More's the pity. The current one isn't terribly intellectual, either. I wonder how he's going to get through all 96 pages of the Baker Commission Report.

The appointed head of the House Intelligence Committee isn't very bright either. He doesn't know anything about al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, for starters. And I mean - absolutely nothing.

The appointed head of the House Intelligence Committee isn't very bright either. He doesn't know anything about al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, for starters. And I mean - absolutely nothing.

Quite right, I did forget him. :rolleyes: Which only shows that anyone can get elected to any position, given the right backing and enough money.

It is part of the religious movement in the US, and the conservative movement.
Religion doesn't cause anti-intellectualism. Theology should encourage intellectual debate, though humans can twist anything to fit their immediate concerns or ideology (which is where the certainly guilty conservatism comes into it.)

The belief that everyone has the right to have an opinion has mutated into the false belief that everyone's opinion is equally valid.

I don't think that postmodern thinking is really all that widespread.

The appointed head of the House Intelligence Committee isn't very bright either. He doesn't know anything about al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, for starters. And I mean - absolutely nothing.

Last year, Reps. Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.) and Terry Everett (R-Ala.) - both of whom will return to the committee in the new session - could not answer basic intelligence questionshttp://www.cnsnews.com/ViewFlash.asp?Page=/ThisHour/Archive/NTH20061211l.html

This sort of idiocy has been going on for a while. I'm sure part of the reason the Bush administration thought Iraq would be a "cake walk" was because they didn't know the difference and the violent history between sunni and shia. The problem is that these are house committees. They can't just go out and recruit experts to sit on the committee. They only have the current members of the House of Representatives to draw from. Kind of fucked up, ain't it?

The reason for anti-intellectualism in America is that the social heirarchy in schools is based on athletic prowess more than intellectual prowess. Many people without intellectual skills become popular, and react with scorn against those who are more intelligent than they are. People who are both intelligent and athletic are never ostracized because of their intelligence. Intelligent people who aren't athletic justify it by claiming intellectual superiority. Althletic people who aren't intelligent react negatively to this and, because they are more popular, their sentiments are adopted by society as a whole.

I think it could all be cured if we separate sports from school like it is in Europe. That would de-emphasize athletics in society and help solve the problem.

It's Lunatic Goofballs. He's supposed to do that.

And I have ADD, thank you very much, and the meds are actually working.

Well, if you have ADD, you might not want to drink all that orange soda. Teh sugar in there is madness. :p

Well, if you have ADD, you might not want to drink all that orange soda. Teh sugar in there is madness. :p

*shrug*
Sugar has no effect on me, unless I take it with my meds.

And my meds aren't working now.... frickin tolerance....

*shrug*
Sugar has no effect on me, unless I take it with my meds.

Uh-huh, sure.

(in sing-song tune) Someone's in de-NI-al!

Uh-huh, sure.

(in sing-song tune) Someone's in de-NI-al!

No, really. It has no effect on me.

No, really. It has no effect on me.

Sssssssssssssssssssssure, it doesn't. ;)

On my online Shy-people support group a member talked about recieving critisism for doing well in school and praised her brother for average marks. Being well rounded is a good thing, yes. But if you are good at something you should be praised for it. In this situation her parents pretty much just called her a geek. HER PARENTS

A couple things...

Religion doesn't cause anti-intellectualism. Theology should encourage intellectual debate, though humans can twist anything to fit their immediate concerns or ideology (which is where the certainly guilty conservatism comes into it.)

I think this is spot on, great point.

I'm impressed with your understanding of life. Unfortunately, you're not the president of the United States.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but thanks for your comment either way. :cool:

I thought the same while being serious, Santiagazo!

I hate to admit that I got lost in this thread. You all tease me about being illiterate but I am actually quite the writer. I was a journalist for the Army and have been published in numerous national newspapers and Magazines. That I do not type well has more to do with my ill lit room, black keyboard, dyslexia and refusal to edit myself for a farging chat forum than illiteracy.

HOWEVER I entirely agree with many of the thoughs I have read. America does indeed have a serious problem with education. I believe it begins with our education systems foundations. Our schools were designed to train children to become factory workers, not students during the industrial revolution. Education has never been percieved by American conservatives as a right, but rather as a way to empower the masses. Thsi is why the right of education for blacks has been such a struggle and why "seperate but equal" was so important a hurdle for us to cross.
In our modern era we have seen a struggle between our education system, still designed to train factory workers, and our high tech world, which demands more intelligent decision making processes in employees. Our education system is still trying to churn out people who can follow a pattern. Our financial and scientifiic systems need people who can think.

In addition our popular culture has equated self empowerment and selfishness as brilliance. While the 60's and 70's extolled these in youth, by the 80's it had become self evident (at least to me) that this "me first" mindset was ruining our children. Rebellion is for losers.

Today we face a struggle between teaching our children to do math, read and write while at the same time enabling them to gather and process information themselves.

I believe that the only solution to this is to establish a national education system which sets a standard for each grade. You may take as long or as short a time as necessary to complete each grade, but failing to complete a grade does require you stay there indefinitely UP TO A POINT. At some point in the progression students should begin to be taught to either think for themselves or follow patterns--depending on what they feel and show aptitude for. If a chlid seems pointed to working as a mechanic he should learn mechanical skills. If a child shows brilliance at math he should be allowed to concentrate on the maths. If a child is pretty and likes sex, why...(just kidding)

Balancing these things out in a fair and sane fashion should NOT be impossible. But it should be done if we intend to use our children as the national resource they are. I don't claim that they are property, but rather that their contribution to America (or whichever country they are in) should be empowered and helped along, instead of being shoved into a hole in order to satisfy a quota.
As for popular culture denigrating stupidity, I believe that by empowering children to think for themselves and do things they enjoy, they will find that being stupid and ill educated is not as cool as their parents thought it was.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but thanks for your comment either way. :cool:

Wasn't sarcastic, you're welcome!

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewFlash.asp?Page=/ThisHour/Archive/NTH20061211l.html

This sort of idiocy has been going on for a while. I'm sure part of the reason the Bush administration thought Iraq would be a "cake walk" was because they didn't know the difference and the violent history between sunni and shia. The problem is that these are house committees. They can't just go out and recruit experts to sit on the committee. They only have the current members of the House of Representatives to draw from. Kind of fucked up, ain't it?

If you consider that the average voter doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, they can't very well know if the person they vote for is an ignoramous on the subject.

Hate to say it, but Wilbur and Orville were bike mechanics...

...yes, I'm hurting my support for intellectuals with this comment. Shaddap.

However they approached aviation and aircraft design in a scientific manner. They studied how birds flew. They built mock-ups of the vehicle they intended to build and flew them like kites to learn how they would move and behave. They demonstrated the scientific method and proved that you don't have to be a scientist to do science. They also proved that tradesmen aren't necessarily stupid and uneducated.

If a chlid seems pointed to working as a mechanic he should learn mechanical skills. If a child shows brilliance at math he should be allowed to concentrate on the maths. If a child is pretty and likes sex, why...(just kidding)


You have some great points. But I'm kind of divided on this idea.

One one hand, I think that children shoud get a well-rounded education in K-12, and even in college, then start to specialize. Building a strong educational is the basis for talented professionals. If you have the basic competence in place, it makes it much easier to learn and adapt to new knowledge, as well as the ability to see how your job fits into the general scheme of society.

On the other hand, specialization could produce brilliant and skilled individuals in a single area. I suppose that we need both well-rounded people as well as thoes that are outstanding in one area.

Perhaps a good way to implement this would be to place students in a cohort group early in elementary school. Basically, a student would stay with the same group of classmates through grades 1-8. However, they would be with this group for one class period a day. During this period they would be under the general guidance of a teacher, but would have some freedom of topics to study based on their interests. A lot of the work would be hands-on projects, etc.

The advantage of the cohort group in this case is that students have a group of classmates that they can really get to know. Perhaps the cohort group would be self-segregating, and would be a microcosm of what goes on in the schools as a whole (teasing, caste-like systems, etc.). At first, kids would invariably say, "Susie is a dumbass, lol." But eventually, with time and the guidance of the teacher, I think the students would become supportive of one another's abilities and strengths, and become more accepting of people as a whole. It would force kids to be able to reconcile differences with others that they may not get along with. Keep in mind kids would only be in the class with their cohort group for one hour a day, and the other five or so would be spent in the normal curriculum (which needs to be more intense, by the way).

The advantage of the specialized class with a cohort group would be that kids can explore topics that they are strong in and develop interests in different subjects. With the support of their group and teacher, they become confident that their abilities are significant and can be applied in many different ways. It allows each student the flexibility to really pursue something that they are strong in. Of course, in a class like this, teacher control would still need to be strong, but the actual content of the class would not be heavily controlled. First graders aren't really capable of independent study in the strictest sense.

I'm not an educator, psychologist, or policy expert. But this is the newest creation of my random thought. Do you think this policy of using cohort groups and/or a specialized, somewhat self-directed class would work? I'd like to hear your ideas.