<p>"that Islam is a complext entity, evolved over more than a thousand years and across a thousand miles, and can’t be adequately studied by watching TV for several hours? "</p>
<p>Really. and you dont get this out of any book. You refuse to read a book that might disagree with what you have learned in life. Your life has given you direct, empirical knowledge of islam over the last 1300 years. You must be quite old, then. </p>
<p>“It is not just a sponge that absorbs ideas of others.”</p>
<p>Being a sponge is NOT how you learn macroeconomics, earth science, or intellectual history. It is unfortunately, how many people learn the know nothingism that is so widespread today.</p>
<p>MiamiDAP, you have quite possibly misunderstood almost every argument that you’ve confronted. No one has said that learning a bunch of facts will give you a better perspective or experience in the real world, which is why reading The Internet will not do much for you (of course we’re talking about relevance here, you can learn a lot from the internet, just not the things you can learn in school).
You evade all of my arguments, you come up with new statements with nothing to back it up except that you’re older and more experienced and we should trust you. I have to ask, and I hope that you will respond to me in a direct manner… what exactly is your argument?</p>
<p>Distressed, you are blinded by your own failure, you lack the maturity to blame only yourself and you will never be successful till you change your ridiculous attitude. The extent of your ignorance is shocking, and your usefulness in this thread is disappointing. If you have an argument, I would like to hear it. And please… don’t try to psychoanalyze me, it’s childish.</p>
<p>Hadsed, I think I have to ask you , what is exactly is your argument? You just blabber on subjectively without ever really saying anything. Neither you nor brooklyn dad has a basis for your arguments, and any real attempt at discussion relevant to the topic of this thread is futile. Go ahead and insult me, because I think we both know who is right here.</p>
<p>Hadsed and Brooklyn, do you have a list of courses that every college student should be required to take in order to be educated to your standards? General education requirements don’t even come close to covering every single area of study; if they did, there wouldn’t be any time left for a major.</p>
<p>“Hadsed and Brooklyn, do you have a list of courses that every college student should be required to take in order to be educated to your standards? General education requirements don’t even come close to covering every single area of study; if they did, there wouldn’t be any time left for a major.”</p>
<p>I have not said everyone should be educated in every field. I just see a climate of growing anti-intellectualism, in which one is denounced as socialist and anti-american for daring to assert the things we have actually learned in an array of fields, and I see folks questioning the desirability of university educations in general, and I cant help but seeing those as connected. A broad rebellion against book learning, against research, against “intellectuals who think they are better than us” and a constant affirmation of the common sense of the people, or at least when that common sense happens to agree with some peoples ideological bent.</p>
<p>Keiolei, you make a good point, though I did address this by suggesting that academic institutions need to reorganize their priorities (that is, to promote learning over other [still important] things like career services and social atmosphere). Like brooklynborndad is talking about (though may have a different opinion on what to do to fix it), there is a very obvious trend of anti-intellectualism that, I think, is detrimental to society.</p>
<p>Stevensmama, I would say that the general requirements are somewhat sufficient. Obviously not everyone can be a history, economics, philosophy, or literature major, but everyone can learn about all of those things. I think it’s not so important to make sure everyone has an in-depth knowledge of everything, but I do think that a cursory look at all subjects is sufficient enough to at least give people a starting point. If someone wanted to have an opinion on economics and the policies of our government, at least they will know the general workings of an economy in the first place so they can reason about how something ought to work versus the way it currently works, what other options could possibly be, where to read about it more and where to start if someone is interested in that sort of thing. Same with religious perspectives. That priest in Florida would not be burning a Quran if he knew what was written in it (almost all of the same beliefs and morals he believes in as well). I think the general requirements are fine the way they are because they do two important things: help first year students explore their options, and also do what I’ve described above. It’s a very good system in my opinion, but cultural attitudes towards learning in general is making it difficult for the system to be effective.</p>
<p>Distressed…
I’ve presented my arguments many times throughout this thread. If you have a counterargument, I suggest you get together the posts I made on the first page (or more, if needed/relevant) and dissect the ideas within them. Tell me how a society is supposed to function without educated people, tell me why the reason for a lot of the bad things in global society that I’ve described cannot be attributed to ignorance, and tell me why exactly I am wrong.</p>
<p>Now let’s keep this civil. No more insults.</p>
<p>hdsed,
"we should trust you’ - nope, you should trust nobody. I told my D. that she should trust me, I have explained to her why. I have no reasons to do it here. yes, I am very old, but my age has nothing to do with any of this, I did not change my opinion for about 50 years, because nothing really has changed. What has worked in economics 50 years ago, will work now and what did not work, will not work now. however, i am right, just like 2+2=4 in our universe. but for god sake, keep your opinions as long as you wish, it is your right.</p>
About as wrong as you could get… even a person with no economic background will know that different situations require different methods and solutions. I hate to make an example… but you really brought this on yourself. That statement very clearly shows why people need to be educated.</p>
<p>Again… I’d like an argument against the topic, otherwise there’s nothing to debate and this is just useless bickering about nothing.</p>
<p>Aren’t you the poster that wanted everyone else to refrain from name-calling?</p>
<p>I understand some of what you are posting, but a lot of it is confusing. Are you suggesting that everyone needs to take an extremely varied courseload in college, and it is impossible to educate yourself outside an academic setting? That’s nonsense.</p>
<p>I earned degrees in Biophysics, Electrical Engineering and a Masters in IS. I think I maybe took 5 or 6 courses not in those areas. I realy enjoyed them and wish I could have taken more, but that’s all I had time for. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have intellectual curiosity and the ability to learn on my own.</p>
<p>Perhaps you could help all of us understand your position better if you would add a little context about yourself. Maybe that wold help us understand what you consider the ideal college curriculum.</p>
<p>Are you an adult? If so, what did you study in college and what sort of general education courses did you take?
Are you a college student? Same questions about your present program.</p>
<p>If you are a high school student, what do you plan? I fear you may be in for a rude awakening if you want to finish a degree in a reasonable amount of time.</p>
<p>I really just wanted Distressed to make a case instead of venting his frustration by insulting me… for no reason. I’m also a little irritated that MiamiDAP keeps arguing about irrelevant things and not sticking to the main points. Regardless, yeah it was probably wrong to do that.</p>
<p>I’ll try and sum up my ideas throughout the thread. If we can all agree that global society would be a better place if people were less ignorant, then we can start there. I think that academic institutions aren’t putting enough emphasis on learning in college, and American society (I live in America so I’m not too aware of other countries in that regard) is beginning to see a college education as another hoop to jump through in order to get a job. I find that detrimental to society because people are no longer willing to view education as a way to grow, mature, and increase the breadth of their knowledge. The last bit is especially important because a society with ignorant people can lead to huge problems. In fact, we can already see examples of these ‘problems’ in our society today; take the (somewhat generalized) comments of Brooklynborndad about people being anti-Islamist, accusing leaders of socialist views, and all sorts of things like that. If nothing else, increasing the breadth of knowledge for the people of society will help to lessen these problems (and I think by a very significant amount).</p>
<p>Certainly college is not the only way to go, but I think that it’s a huge part. That’s not to say that the experience you get from the ‘real world’ is not beneficial; a well-educated, well-informed and moral person will have a mix of everything and a person can certainly educate themselves without going to college. However, without an education I think that people would be heavily impaired. Specifically I find that the humanities classes are the ones that offer the ‘big picture’ sort of learning that I mean. That includes history, philosophy, literature, and other related things. There is also something about being in an intellectual and [somewhat] diverse environment that helps a person mature and see the world and its people with new perspective. Now obviously not every institution is like this, which is why I make the comments about universities needing to review their priorities, as well as my comments on why society ought to change its attitude on education (to make it about learning, not just ‘getting that degree’).</p>
<p>That takes me to your next question about academic requirements. In my earlier posts towards the end of the thread (at this point) I think I addressed this. I agree completely with the general requirements system and I think that given the other changes I described above it is sufficient. I also included reasons above, but the major reason is because it gives a cursory look at everything so that everyone has a bit of background in everything. When you have no idea how an economy works, you’re more susceptible to listening to ignorant politicians calling each other socialists (which is absurd)… just as an example.</p>
<p>A bit about myself: I’m a college student majoring in physics and mathematics, planning on getting a Ph.D in mathematical physics. I hate taking humanities classes, but I realize their usefulness so I try not to complain too much, in case you were surprised about my support of humanities classes.</p>
<p>I don’t question your support for humanities classes, I just question the ability of the typical student to take a significant number of humanities classes while pursuing a degree in a subject removed from the humanities. And vice versa. Even people who combine a STEM major with a humanities major will still be concentrating in one area of technology and one area of humanities. I know there are schools that emphasize “Life of the Mind,” or “The Great Books”. But IMO, for most people, attaining a breadth of knowledge is more a matter of lifetime learning, part of which might be done in an academic setting, but a good deal of which is likely done by other means. A good deal of academia is involved not with imparting knowledge, but in the evaluation of how well the student has absorbed that knowledge (eg tests, grades, etc.) Sometimes it’s easier to learn without those encumbrances. And bear in mind that I love school. I’ve taken one class or another most of my life.</p>
<p>In some instances, for reasonably curious individuals, it is almost as good or even better to learn outside a classroom. It depends what your purpose is for learning something… Let me take one example from your “list”. Islam. I am no expert on Islamic history or the Islamic religion by any means. I would love to have been able to take a course or several courses in Islam while in college. Just as I would have loved to have been able to take courses in Buddhism, Hinduism, Zorastrianism and Swedenborgism for that matter. But I didn’t have the time for that, or the money. So I’ve got a copy of the Glorious Koran on my bookshelf. I personally find it tough reading. So I’ve also got a couple books on comparative religion. I have access to the internet and the library. And although I haven’t been able to make it to Mecca or Medina, I have been to Southern Spain and Morocco, where Islam played a significant role.</p>
<p>However, because Islam not only contains important cultural and historical elements, but is also a religious faith, I’ve actually learned the most about it from my Muslim friends and colleagues. Discussing it with them, asking questions about ritual prayer or the pilgrimage to Mecca. I’ve been able to learn something by observing them fasting, giving alms. So obviously I may not know a lot of the specifics I would learn in a yearlong class. But I have been able to pick up a little bit along the way. </p>
<p>Of course I would agree that it is better to have an educated society than an ignorant society. How much it correlates with morality I’m not sure. Supposedly learned people can be pretty nasty. And a lot of intellectual thought is neither moral nor immoral. I think that to the extent I am a decent person it has come more from my parents and my interaction with other people than anything I learned in school, in a book, or on the internet. But I’m not prepared to debate this issue in depth, I don’t really have a strong opinion other than my personal experience.</p>
<p>Please continue learning, hadsed. I don’t think politicians call other politicians socialist because they are ignorant. It isn’t because they are unaware of the definition of socialism(ignorance) It is because some politicians do in fact show some tendencies toward socialism, but more importantly because it is a scary, emotional word. No politician in the U.S. wants to be known as a socialist. It is an attempt to paint another with an unfavorable label. It is not born from ignorance of the word, but rather a clever and often useful political device. If you think that politicians are unaware of the meaning, and that their name-calling behavior is absurd, then you didn’t look deep enough to grasp the very calculated reasoning behind it.
A part of the objection to your ideas is that they are such grand dreams- <em>gee, if all the world stayed in college and got highly educated, we could all grow apple trees and honeybees…</em> (paraphrasing) I can dream too. I can dream of a world where we need no military because there is no strife. I can dream of being young, 6’ tall, and having the Laker Girls fight over who gets to date me first. Sweet dreams perhaps, but too far-fetched to be worth a real discussion. No one disagrees college can be a good thing. But there are many opinions and many different objectives that many people see as the value of college. There is no one right answer, not even yours.</p>