|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 21 2017 06:04 LegalLord wrote:
I’ve also noticed that those who advocate for “the arts” often fail to appreciate the necessity of the reverse, of artistically inclined individuals having to learn calculus, physics, biology, and the like. The roundedness is often unidirectional and it makes me wonder if it’s less about roundedness and more about reversing the trend of what is popular.
It’s weird, because the people who defend the arts also defended the sciences for centuries. The humanities created the world of law and governments that let the sciences thrived.
|
On November 21 2017 06:03 farvacola wrote:
"all round terrible" isn't quite right, there are plenty of world-class educational institutions spanning the entire country, public, private, charter, or otherwise. The problem relates instead to consistency and extreme differences between schools mere blocks away from one another, among other things.
I’m aware of the sweeping inequality of the US educational system. Which is sort of what I was getting at. It isn’t the subject that’s the issue but the program and methods of teaching said program.
English literacy and mathematics are just as useless as what some posters in this thread think of the arts with an ineffective program. You can see it first hand when some high performing students struggle hard in university because previous ROTE learning methods don’t work in a much faster paced university environment that typically provides less worked examples.
|
To be fair, I'd rather have kids learn about personal finance than repeatedly fail algebra and geometry. So no, I'm not just unfairly shitting on the arts. But let's get real. It is far more likely that a given student is going to learn marketable skills -- particularly very valuable ones -- in STEM classes than in arts classes.
|
As a stemlord, I think it's incredibly important that arts etc are taught in school, although probably not every student should need to do them to senior level.
If we're going to complain about arts education, the far bigger issue to me is the huge numbers of people that drive themselves deeply into debt and/or spend huge sums of taxpayer money to get a tertiary liberal arts degree they have no use for.
Arts in high school is fine and is really not the lowest hanging fruit on this tree.
EDIT: I'll add that tertiary liberal arts is important as well, but far more people study it than can get value for money out of it.
|
I know plenty of people making a solid living on of their artistic talents, with a healthy amount of business know how and marketing. Even in STEM there is a huge need back grounds in art when it comes to designing user interfaces and ascetic design.
Edit: I’m not really sure that there are this crippling number of people with liberal arts educations out there. Or they are any larger in number than the failed law and medical students.
|
On November 21 2017 06:04 LegalLord wrote:
I’ve also noticed that those who advocate for “the arts” often fail to appreciate the necessity of the reverse, of artistically inclined individuals having to learn calculus, physics, biology, and the like. The roundedness is often unidirectional and it makes me wonder if it’s less about roundedness and more about reversing the trend of what is popular.
Any real artist works with math, biology, physics, everything because art is broad and is utilized in virtually everything, I took biology courses with a renowned zoological veteranarian in art school because artists understand the importance of the integration of the arts with things like math and the sciences.
No creature designer working hasnt studied animal anatomy, no character designer hasn't studied the human muscular and skeletal structure.
We champion STEAM and not STEM for a reason. 
|
On November 21 2017 06:27 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 06:04 LegalLord wrote:
I’ve also noticed that those who advocate for “the arts” often fail to appreciate the necessity of the reverse, of artistically inclined individuals having to learn calculus, physics, biology, and the like. The roundedness is often unidirectional and it makes me wonder if it’s less about roundedness and more about reversing the trend of what is popular. Any real artist works with math, biology, physics, everything because art is broad and is utilized in virtually everything, I took biology courses with a renowned zoological veteranarian in art school because artists understand the importance of the integration of the arts with things like math and the sciences. No creature designer working hasnt studied animal anatomy, no character designer hasn't studied the human muscular and skeletal structure. We champion STEAM and not STEM for a reason.
Evidently a lot of artists are not real artists then.
And to be fair it's reasonable for there to be gaps in knowledge in fields that are not your specialty. But if there's merit to a "liberal arts education" for personal enrichment (there definitely is) then the same goes for STEM.
|
On November 21 2017 06:20 Belisarius wrote:
As a stemlord, I think it's incredibly important that arts etc are taught in school, although probably not every student should need to do them to senior level.
If we're going to complain about arts education, the far bigger issue to me is the huge numbers of people that drive themselves deeply into debt and/or spend huge sums of taxpayer money to get a tertiary liberal arts degree they have no use for.
Arts in high school is fine and is really not the lowest hanging fruit on this tree.
EDIT: I'll add that tertiary liberal arts is important as well, but far more people study it than can get value for money out of it.
from a personal anecdote, my high school "economics" class (which thought basic economic principles and budgeting/personal finance) was replaced with STEM classes, biology/more chem and physics.
whats lacking IMO is lack of direction in schools, and low level of personalization, which leads to people doing things just to do things, because the perceived priority is going to a higher level education, instead of doing something that's a mix of things one wants to do, is apt for ones skillsets and is favorable to the current/future market.
school should still be the place where you learn the base of everything, especially the arts.
|
On November 21 2017 06:16 xDaunt wrote:
To be fair, I'd rather have kids learn about personal finance than repeatedly fail algebra and geometry. So no, I'm not just unfairly shitting on the arts. But let's get real. It is far more likely that a given student is going to learn marketable skills -- particularly very valuable ones -- in STEM classes than in arts classes.
Probably the case, though it should be noted that in terms of higher education the only area that has declined more than the humanities has been the sciences. Despite this, I don't think education should be for the sake of learning the most marketable skills.
|
On November 21 2017 06:41 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 06:16 xDaunt wrote:
To be fair, I'd rather have kids learn about personal finance than repeatedly fail algebra and geometry. So no, I'm not just unfairly shitting on the arts. But let's get real. It is far more likely that a given student is going to learn marketable skills -- particularly very valuable ones -- in STEM classes than in arts classes. Probably the case, though it should be noted that in terms of higher education the only area that has declined more than the humanities has been the sciences. Despite this, I don't think education should be for the sake of learning the most marketable skills.
To add to this, what is marketable today will not necessarily be marketable tomorrow. STEM is the hot topic, but that could easily change within the next 20 years, so how do you plan out a marketable education 18 years in advance? Education should be about one thing. Exposure to new ideas, with the freedom to focus on the ideas that intrigue you the most as you continue down your path. Highschools with large varieties of elective courses are probably the best at this, but when you have underfunded schools this becomes less common.
|
On November 21 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 06:27 Zambrah wrote:On November 21 2017 06:04 LegalLord wrote:
I’ve also noticed that those who advocate for “the arts” often fail to appreciate the necessity of the reverse, of artistically inclined individuals having to learn calculus, physics, biology, and the like. The roundedness is often unidirectional and it makes me wonder if it’s less about roundedness and more about reversing the trend of what is popular. Any real artist works with math, biology, physics, everything because art is broad and is utilized in virtually everything, I took biology courses with a renowned zoological veteranarian in art school because artists understand the importance of the integration of the arts with things like math and the sciences. No creature designer working hasnt studied animal anatomy, no character designer hasn't studied the human muscular and skeletal structure. We champion STEAM and not STEM for a reason. Evidently a lot of artists are not real artists then. And to be fair it's reasonable for there to be gaps in knowledge in fields that are not your specialty. But if there's merit to a "liberal arts education" for personal enrichment (there definitely is) then the same goes for STEM.
Honestly, a lot of artists are fuckin' hacks. And you're right, I'm 100% less knowledgable on evolutionary biology than actual evolutionary biology, but I've made an attempt to engage, I've studied animal anatomy, learned the basics, and I highly value the application of biology in my work. I have a friend who works with high level math in his artwork, I had a professor who worked on modelling carbon structures or something (I will not pretend like I understood him) with people at MIT.
The problem is that few people argue the usefulness of STEM, I admire the pursuit of those who better want to understand the world and (not to sound like a super villain) bend our world for our use, but I hate when people don't respect the role art plays not only in STEM but in the general world.
Everything we use is designed, chairs, stools, buildings, pizza boxes, toys, medical modeling, lamps, toilets, glasses. People always take for granted how much use art actually sees.
People always think the fine arts, the Jackson Pollocks and Van Goghs of the world, the fine artists and such. There is so much more.
|
Personally, being a nerdy person with nerdy pass times, I have a bunch of friends in tech and other STEM fields. Although I think their jobs are super neat, having to explain to every one of them why companies and courts still use fax machines(you can’t alter, screw with a fax) is the fucking worst. Everyone is backwards and stupid except for their industry, which is making the future. And this extends to civics, basic landlord tenant law, music recording, how the registry of deeds works or anything else on the planet. The whole “STEM is worthwhile and all the other fields of study are luxuries” attitude needs to be put down as soon as possible, IMO.
|
My sense is that in some of the humanities it's possible to slide by somehow, while in STEM things tend to be a little more metric driven with grades corresponding pretty well to future career performance. The example I go back to is this kid I knew who majored in music performance. He somehow graduated with honors, but his violin playing was pretty garbage (I played violin for 10+ years, so I felt reasonably qualified to make that judgement). I guess there's a reason he didn't go to Julliard or some other conservatory, though.
This is fully acknowledging that there is certainly plenty of coursework in the humanities which is really fucking rigorous, especially to someone with minimal training in social science writing and research.
|
I've always thought that this was the best way to represent what high school education should do for you.
http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
It should give you well rounded expertise in a variety of topic areas, possibly with a focus on something important to you.
What well-rounded means is up to debate, but my view is that you should have a decent understanding of enough math to get around in life, up to algebra/some trigonometry (useful for home projects, everything from cooking to renovations). A fair understanding of civics (voting, what representatives do etc. history/historical events) and science (scientific method, critical thinking, finding sources from libraries/non-wikipedia, and reliable vs unreliable sources).
Arts-wise, languages are always useful. An advanced mastery of the language you work in is never a bad idea (English for most people on this board).
It SHOULD prepare you to learn in depth about something to do later in life, so you aren't at age 40 flipping burgers. It should NOT teach you about that in depth if you don't think/want to learn it.
|
There's certainly a lot of fixes that could be made to improve the educational system, but it's rather hard to do. The politicians (and the public at large), often aren't so keen on the things recommended by the people who actually study what makes for an effective education system. They do listen someewhat, but they also have their own things they like to do, and there's a lot of inertia too; alot of things which are known to be ineffective but persist because no politician wants to go to the trouble of changing it (which indeed could cost them their job, because some people are reactionary to change).
|
On November 21 2017 06:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
My sense is that in some of the humanities it's possible to slide by somehow, while in STEM things tend to be a little more metric driven with grades corresponding pretty well to future career performance. The example I go back to is this kid I knew who majored in music performance. He somehow graduated with honors, but his violin playing was pretty garbage (I played violin for 10+ years, so I felt reasonably qualified to make that judgement). I guess there's a reason he didn't go to Julliard or some other conservatory, though.
This is fully acknowledging that there is certainly plenty of coursework in the humanities which is really fucking rigorous, especially to someone with minimal training in social science writing and research.
In secondary school, that's definitely not really true. You can grind through the sciences through pure ROTE learning and paying for a whole book of practice questions. Eventually, you'll see a question you've seen before and you can spit it out verbatim. I got over 40 in specialist mathematics (top 9% in the state) but I couldn't do shit in university Calculus 201 for that reason. I didn't actually learn how to learn until university and I'm still pretty terrible at mathematics, despite being an engineer by trade.
In fact, some of the schools obsessed with metric results will do exactly that and it completely hampers the future development of all students who teach by this method. They rush through the curriculum, because secondary school can seem extremely slow, and spend the second half of the year feeding practice exams to students. I think this is mostly a Commonwealth nation thing however.
|
On November 21 2017 06:04 LegalLord wrote:
I’ve also noticed that those who advocate for “the arts” often fail to appreciate the necessity of the reverse, of artistically inclined individuals having to learn calculus, physics, biology, and the like. The roundedness is often unidirectional and it makes me wonder if it’s less about roundedness and more about reversing the trend of what is popular.
I have literally never seen this because no one ever seriously advocates to cut STEM classes.
Everyone I've ever seen in any discussion regarding this topic acknowledges how STEM fields are useful. The idea of opposing STEM subjects is so taboo that people refuse to even acknowledge that we have too many STEM degrees being churned out for not enough jobs nowadays.
I'm pretty sure this is another instance of you trying to create a conflict and opposing view where there isn't one.
|
On November 21 2017 06:20 Belisarius wrote:
As a stemlord, I think it's incredibly important that arts etc are taught in school, although probably not every student should need to do them to senior level.
If we're going to complain about arts education, the far bigger issue to me is the huge numbers of people that drive themselves deeply into debt and/or spend huge sums of taxpayer money to get a tertiary liberal arts degree they have no use for.
Arts in high school is fine and is really not the lowest hanging fruit on this tree.
EDIT: I'll add that tertiary liberal arts is important as well, but far more people study it than can get value for money out of it.
Far more people study everything than can get value for money out of it. This applies to going to college as a whole.
But the problem isn't that the degrees aren't useful. The problem is that college costs are simply too high in this country. For some reason, we just can't seem to do college in this country right.
|
On November 21 2017 05:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
Hey that's not fair. Nixon wouldn't have forgotten about the state he came from.
I don't think Trump's forgotten Denial.
|
Charlie rose has been accused of harassment by 8 women. I'm not at all surprised lol
1
Charlie Rose Accused by EIGHT Women of Sexual Harassment, Groping
by Ken Meyer | 5:16 pm, November 20th, 2017
submit to reddit
Eight women are claiming that longtime TV news veteran Charlie Rose made unwanted sexual advances towards them, which includes lewd phone calls, inappropriate touching, and nudity in their presence.
Rose’s accusers spoke to Washington Post, which noted that there were “striking commonalities” when they recounted their interactions with Rose in the past. The women described inappropriate behavior from Rose which stretches from the 90s to 2011.
ALSO ON MEDIAITE
Neil Cavuto Hits Trump: 'You're The President of the United States! Why Don't You Act Like It?'
From the report:
Most of the women said Rose alternated between fury and flattery in his interactions with them. Five described Rose putting his hand on their legs, sometimes their upper thigh, in what they perceived as a test to gauge their reactions. Two said that while they were working for Rose at his residences or were traveling with him on business, he emerged from the shower and walked naked in front of them. One said he groped her buttocks at a staff party.
Some of Rose’s accusers wished to remain anonymous for fear of his influence within the media. However, Reah Bravo, a former PBS intern and and one of three women who spoke on the record, said she experienced several moments where Rose made unwanted advances towards her.
“It has taken 10 years and a fierce moment of cultural reckoning for me to understand these moments for what they were,” said Bravo. “He was a sexual predator, and I was his victim.”
Kyle Godfrey-Ryan, one of Rose’s former assistants, told WaPo of multiple instances where Rose walked in front of her with no clothes on while she worked from his house. Godfrey-Ryan went on to describe several crude phone calls she took from Rose, and how she was fired when Rose learned that she spoke to an acquaintance about his behavior.
When asked about the allegations, Rose offered this statement:
“In my 45 years in journalism, I have prided myself on being an advocate for the careers of the women with whom I have worked. Nevertheless, in the past few days, claims have been made about my behavior toward some former female colleagues.
It is essential that these women know I hear them and that I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior. I am greatly embarrassed. I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken.
“I have learned a great deal as a result of these events, and I hope others will too. All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
