<p>^^
I agree that a broad education is important for anyone - no matter what their career interest. And communication skills (written and oral) are critical. However, I don’t think the “exposure” to those things HAS to be limited to college. There are high schools that do a very good job of exposing kids to those areas. Certainly, the overseas school my sons went to did. My private HS in New Orleans did as well (back in the dark ages).</p>
<p>In addition, many people do this on their own. My DH is a scientist (BS and MS). However, he is an accomplished musician, loves reading biographies of great leaders, enjoys studying history, is a big military history buff, has taken a non-credit class in comparative religions, and (at the age of 50+) spent 3 years learning Russian. It’s not all about what is done in a college classroom.</p>
<p>In no way do I consider engineers, doctors, accountants, etc to be “uneducated.” The drive, intelligence, and determination to pursue some of these careers is intense. The course of study may be very focused in some schools (though not all schools) but it is far beyond “career training.” IMO, that is just insulting.</p>
<p>And I guess I just hang with an unusual crowd…highly educated (Masters and PhDs) and they are all quite conservative. They all are broad-minded, open to new ideas and philosophies, love art, music and theater - but all still very conservative.</p>
<p>Which is why comments like “Most educated people are usually liberal” irritate me.</p>
The entire Triangle area is fairly liberal. As one example, the Durham City Council is planning to vote in support of a resolution for civil marriage for same-sex couples. </p>
<p>I was born and raised in Charlotte. THAT is fairly conservative. :(</p>
<p>Rhodes College and the surrounding neighborhood is pretty liberal?
is this true? is it a liberal place and college campus? I hope so. If so, is Rhodes at all gay-friendly?</p>
<p><<" To me education means to have some exposure to religions, philosophy, govt/poly sci, history, world lit and be able to communicate effectively what was learned…"</p>
<p>So basically you just defined away as “uneducated” anyone with an interest in all the right-leaning disciplines. >></p>
<p>Good point, gthopeful! Doesn’t the study of math and science fit into the “educated” individual???</p>
<p>A math/science person may or may not be educated. Its not a guarantee either way. I know many of these types who dont believe the President is an American or that preventative medicine will be less expensive over time. But they are excellent at doing taxes, counting beans, and fixing/designing machines. Wonderful, necessary skills, but it doesnt make them a visionary.</p>
<p>^^^
Isn’t learning about/understanding math and science - in conjunction with literature, philosophy, history, art, etc - PART of being an "educated person?</p>
<p>Ignoring the importance of math and science - and therefore ignoring the contributions that mathematicians and scientists have made over the centuries - is just plain dumb.</p>
<p>grcxx3- You are proving my point. Pls read what I have written and nothing more. Nobody is ignoring math/science contributions. I am saying that it alone does not guarantee being educated. I know many tech/accounting/engineering people that are wonderful at their trade but cant speak intelligently about anything outside their field. Yet the funny thing is, this lack of knowledge doesnt stop them from an air of authority on all subjects.</p>
<p>gg- interesting list. Are you pro-slavery or anti-Union? Is insuring bank deposits and Social Security bad things? Should America adopt the Ostrich as our national symbol?</p>
<p>Love to hear your thoughts.</p>
<p>ps If anyone reads this post and doesnt understand the above references, then you are not educated.</p>
<p>I’m pro-state rights. Before the Civil War states had sovereignty to some extend, now they’ve barely got anything. Lincoln should have just let the CSA break away. The Emancipation proclamation was bogus because it only freed the slaves in rebelling states which he didn’t even have control over. Towards the end of the Civil War the South willingly freed their slaves, something the North didn’t do until it was over.</p>
<p>Yes, insuring banks and Social Security are bad things. The government has no business backing up failed banks; people should do their own due diligence when finding a bank to deposit their money in… Social Security was a horrible idea. The government forces you to contribute so you’ll have something to retire on later. Give me a break, any responsible person would save money themselves. I know its also in place for people with disabilities; they’d be taken care of by various non-profit agencies or family if there were no Social Security. Now, the people who should be getting social security don’t and the people who shouldn’t do. Its a total socialistic mess.</p>
<p>The Ostrich? You’ve got me on that one.</p>
<p>Anyhow, I think you missed a few points.</p>
<p>Wilson= If you actually go back and do some research you’ll discover a bunch of rich bankers bought his way into the White House. In return, Wilson established the Federal Reserve instituting a system, hugely profitable for a wealthy few, that never allows America to get out of debt. He also established the federal income tax, which wasn’t necessary prior to his administration. And finally, his banker friends were in jeopardy of loosing a fortune if Germany beat the allies (which actually could have happened) so Wilson got us into WWI.</p>
<p>FDR= FDR’s economic policies prolonged the great depression and instituted social security… FDR knew in advance what was going to happen at Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen because he wanted the US into WWII. He established internment camps for Japanese American citizens! He also invaded Iceland, etc.</p>
<p>Lincoln= Didn’t let the South break away causing the bloodiest war in American history. Suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned thousands of people without trial. War crimes through Sherman.</p>
<p>And - if you read my earlier post - I agree. A well-rounded education, including communication skills, is important for any career. But I also said that the education in the “soft subjects” (yeah - go ahead and shoot me down for that term ) does not have to take place in a college. Learning does not end when you leave the classroom. So, “assuming” that an engineer or scientist or accountant has no experience in, knowledge of, or interest in history, literature, language, the arts, political science, etc is silly.</p>
<p>And you’re comment “I know many tech/accounting/engineering people that are wonderful at their trade but cant speak intelligently about anything outside their field. Yet the funny thing is, this lack of knowledge doesnt stop them from an air of authority on all subjects” can apply to anyone with any degree. I have run across many liberal arts folks with the same “affliction.” It’s not a one-way street. </p>
<p>IMO, making major generalizations about people (like math/science/engineering majors are “uneducated”) demonstrates a very limited, shallow view of people.</p>
<p>Gordon_Gekko - I think you and my DH would get along quite well! Can’t speak for Wilson and FDR, but he agrees with you on Lincoln. (Oh - and he’s a Yankee!)</p>
<p>Good lord swish so much is wrong with your posts. So you consider someone with only “exposure to religions, philosophy, govt/poly sci, history, world lit and [having the ability] to communicate effectively what was learned” to be educated? It sounds like you have a ways to go before you’re educated yourself.</p>
<p>I’m not disagreeing with you that perhaps the components above are part of a balanced education, but to equate them with being educated and to relegate other areas of learning to “trades” is downright ignorant.</p>
<p>grcxx3- pls read what I’m saying so you can realize that we are agreeing on almost everything. </p>
<p>gg- your name makes perfect sense to me now. The world must be very confusing to you. All these monuments in DC for a bunch of idiots. Crazy Mt Rushmore. Stupid pictures on money. The only country to have rebellion end with reconcilliation. Middle class development and prosperity. Secure senior citizens.</p>
<p>Maybe Sarah Palin will run on a ticket with Rush Limbaugh in 2012. Govt policies for the past 150yrs will be repealed and greed speech from “Wall Street” will replace the Gettysburg Address in schools and the Sermon on the Mount in church. Then you will be at peace. Good luck with that.</p>
<p>
[quote=]
Maybe Sarah Palin will run on a ticket with Rush Limbaugh in 2012. Govt policies for the past 150yrs will be repealed and greed speech from “Wall Street” will replace the Gettysburg Address in schools and the Sermon on the Mount in church. Then you will be at peace. Good luck with that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It’s possible, I mean, hey, we elected a community organizer to president.</p>
<p>You seem to only be versed in the fairy tale version of American History. Furthermore, you haven’t even dispelled one of the points I made; all you’ve proven is that the masses idolize bad presidents.</p>
Who graduated near the top of his class from Harvard Law and taught Constitutional Law at Chicago Law…</p>
<p>
You blame Lincoln for the Federal Government using the powers that the States gave them in the Constitution? The North had control of large swathes of the South, much of it to the west. The news would also travel into the South, giving those fighting to free the slaves hope and legality, not to mention the political effect it had in the North. Most of the North had already freed their slaves. If I remember correctly it was only the border states of Maryland, Delaware, and the new West Virginia which had not. And besides, the States, in rebellion, acted extra-Constitutionally, if not un-Constitutionally. </p>
<p>I’m not even going to bother relying to the rest of the garbage you posted. Reductio Ad Absurdum should take care of most of it.</p>
) does not have to take place in a college. Learning does not end when you leave the classroom. So, “assuming” that an engineer or scientist or accountant has no experience in, knowledge of, or interest in history, literature, language, the arts, political science, etc is silly.</p>