What are our students actually studying?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/textbooks_behaving_badly.html

I put this in politics and legislation because it is part and parcel to a government

run education system. I thought it was interesting, especially in light of all this race

discussion being permeated through our life and Equal Opportunity is law. The

Author covers some interesting ground.

[peejman]

As it has always been, the winner writes the history books. Same thing applies, be it the wartime winner or election winner. Academia has long been the liberal's realm.

[Jonnin]

Not only are these sorts of books filled with bias, the students are required to take indoctrinating classes under any and all courses of study. A student could be trying to learn engineering or physics or chemistry or whatever yet forced to take garbage classes. I had at least 1 entire semester's worth of pure garbage. Lets see, stuff I was forced to take...

-- african american literature (it was not too bad, really, but much of the writings we studied were social commentary disguised as a story).

-- philosophy (liberalism 101)

-- overview of religions (except, nothing biblical allowed?! ) (choose this or evolution studies AKA anthropology)

there were one or 2 more, some sort of psych class that I cannot remember much about except it was classical junk like fraud and other nuts. Some sort of "ethics" that had nothing to do with ethics.

Now, remember, all this was required to get a degree in computer science.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I was hoping someone would give that info. Thank you, Jonnin. I remember, even in the seventies, it being

like that, also. Not to the extent of today, though. The stuff kids are getting infected with is piling up to the

point that a parent with kids in the public school system might not have a chance. And then in college it's

becoming inescapable.

[Smith]

Reaffirms to me that "free thinking" is not all that free or "liberated" as the "enlightened" among us want us to believe. I can tell you sitting thorugh enough philosophy and history in college that there is an outright defiance of facts and truth. I had some great discussions during that time.

[peejman]

I was hoping someone would give that info. Thank you, Jonnin. I remember, even in the seventies, it being

like that, also. Not to the extent of today, though. The stuff kids are getting infected with is piling up to the

point that a parent with kids in the public school system might not have a chance. And then in college it's

becoming inescapable.

I too had to take a few of those nonsense courses during my engineering degree. They're just a "check in the box" course. You don't really learn anything. Simply memorize what you have to, regurgitate it on the test, and forget it as soon as you walk out the door. If you've not formed a core belief structure by the time you're in college that enables you to determine that these things are total nonsense.... then I don't feel real sorry for someone who gets sucked in.

Reaffirms to me that "free thinking" is not all that free or "liberated" as the "enlightened" among us want us to believe. I can tell you sitting thorugh enough philosophy and history in college that there is an outright defiance of facts and truth. I had some great discussions during that time.

I too had a very liberal US history professor in college. He'd always try to give his slant on things, and I'd frequently point out his errors. He was a good sport about it and we had some entertaining discussions during class. I found out that his son was my high school classmate, which explained a lot about his son...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I agree, but it is the liberal endoctrinating starting at the elementary level that snags a lot of kids now, and that

makes it much more difficult to unravel.

[peejman]

I agree, but it is the liberal endoctrinating starting at the elementary level that snags a lot of kids now, and that

makes it much more difficult to unravel.

True. I'm sure I'll be getting into that with my little ones in the coming years.

[Jonnin]

I was on the leading edge (before the changes, in other words) in the early years. I remember a big debate on how the school was going to put more emphasis on the works of women and minorities .... in pre civil war american history class. Now, I am not going to argue or defend this statement, its just how I see it.... women and minorities have done a lot of good things in our country, and they matter in history.... but to give them "equal time" when discussing an era that was dominated by white men is 100% idiotic. The contributions become rather far fetched and stretched just to get the classroom time in.... its like a hiring quota or something.

And this stuff has leaked into every disipline. When I was supposed to be learning how to write software, I remember we spent at least one full day on Ada. Ok, she was cute, and very bright, and important. But the class was not on the history of writing software, it was on writing software. They added that to make sure we knew that once upon a time, one woman did something in the discipline. The book had notes on other folks (mostly white men, of course) that we did not stop to talk about or waste a class period going over. In other words, Ada gets more time in the classroom than bill gates, steve jobs, and seymore cray combined. And you can flame me for saying it and call me names, but if she had been black I bet we would have spent a week solid on her life and works.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Jonnin

[G27]

I agree, but it is the liberal endoctrinating starting at the elementary level that snags a lot of kids now, and that

makes it much more difficult to unravel.

This is precisely why we choose to home school our kids until we're ready to send them to private school.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's doing it right, Crimson.

[Guest bkelm18]

Guess I'll be the minority here. As a current college student I welcome these "garbage" classes. I prefer examining all viewpoints rather than having my head stuck in the mud. I greatly enjoyed my philosophy and literature classes. Heck, my British Lit classes have been the most enjoyable class I've taken. If a student is too stupid to not be able to form their own opinions by this point in their life, that's not really the fault of the school but rather their parents who didn't foster an environment that allowed their kids to explore their own identity. Yes, their are some professors who cram their viewpoint down the student's throat but they aren't as prevalent as you'd like to imagine.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I think it is a good idea for kids to learn how to do something useful, or at least will make some money. I usually advise kids to get a 2 year degree first because if they run out of steam before finishing the 4 years their courses are not worth as much money as a 2 year degree they actually finished. And then they can make a little money and better afford to go back to school if they desire.

But that said, if a person wants a PhD in midieval french nursery rhymes or underwater basket weaving, makes no diff to me as long as I don't have to pay for it. The world would be truly up the creek without a paddle if underwater basket weaving becomes a lost technology! What a grim, utilitarian, spartan and drab place with no underwater-woven baskets!

Maybe nobody should be forced to study philosophy, but I have to wonder what sort of carp they were shoving at you guys if you didn't appreciate the philosophy at least a little bit. Science and philosophy are so closely entertwined that we really couldn't have one without the other. Virtually all the famous names in math and science well up into the 19th century were philosophers, or alternately all the famous philosophers were typically making strides in science and math as well.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Jonnin]

I had other classes that were not related to my major that I enjoied a lot. Professional writing has served me well to this day. I enjoied the music class, though it was of zero use to me, it was not part of the brain wash program either. Let me be clear about that: there are plenty of non major courses that are fun and broaden ones education. There are also a number of them that are required AND are nothing more than brain washing for political correctness (at the least) and liberalism (at the worst).

I was only aggravated with the brainwash stuff, which is a combination of the books, the school's program director (for whatever major teaches the class in question) and the professor who actually teaches it. One semester of this does not sound so bad, but there were ZERO semesters of an opposing view. That is not well rounded, or broadened, that is narrow and focused and brain washing, period.

I think I might enjoy classical philosophy in a general sense. The classes are not always taught that way, mine was pure and simple liberal thought school for dummies.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Jonnin

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Philosophy or Sociology are subjects that colleges can do their most damage. I have heard horrible examples of

it being taught nowadays. It's like a socialist nightmare, the ones I have heard, and it came from some very intelligent

kids that appeared to accept the class without any challenging of it.

If they are teaching something they should balance the curriculum with opposing viewpoints, instead of dwelling on

utopian thought.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I was only aggravated with the brainwash stuff, which is a combination of the books, the school's program director (for whatever major teaches the class in question) and the professor who actually teaches it. One semester of this does not sound so bad, but there were ZERO semesters of an opposing view. That is not well rounded, or broadened, that is narrow and focused and brain washing, period.

I think I might enjoy classical philosophy in a general sense. The classes are not always taught that way, mine was pure and simple liberal thought school for dummies.

Yeah I suppose they could ruin it, but OTOH if an intelligent liberal weenie is teaching math or chemistry and he is actually teaching the material, the liberal weeniness of it all would only be a minor distraction and you would still learn the math or chem. I'm not doubting that they managed to wrap the philosophy in an unappetising package for ya, but it is difficult to see how they could ruin it too badly if they are teaching the subject matter.

The following is me going off on a tangent rant. It's not directed at you, Jonnin.

Were Plato, Aristotle, Kant or Nietzsche liberals or conservatives? It is almost a nonsensical question.

Though they don't specifically teach philosophy in calculus 101, the entire foundation of math is philosophy. Science couldn't be science without epistemology. Ya get deep enough into science and it gets pretty dang philosophical. When scientists are insufficiently aware of the philosophical foundations we tend to get nutty corruptions such as global warming fascism or eugenics.

The heavy-hitters among the founding fathers knew philosophy forward and back, took it serious as a heart attack. I don't know if a person could read the founders' papers and have a decent understanding of the conversations without some familiarity with philsophy.

Dang it, LOGIC is still taught by the philosophy department to this day! How are ya gonna do much of anything, or even carry on proper debates, without logic? Is logic conservative or liberal?

Philosophy or Sociology are subjects that colleges can do their most damage. I have heard horrible examples of

it being taught nowadays. It's like a socialist nightmare, the ones I have heard, and it came from some very intelligent

kids that appeared to accept the class without any challenging of it.

If they are teaching something they should balance the curriculum with opposing viewpoints, instead of dwelling on

utopian thought.

Hi 6.8

Maybe they can ruin it, but it would be hard to brainwash somebody by properly teaching philosophy because you are dumping into their heads the ideas of zillions of old guys with beards, each one with a completely different take. I don't see how you could expose a student to a zillion different ways of looking at something, and at the same time brainwash em into one point of view. But I suppose it is possible.

I think that people don't really know what they believe until they figure it out and can supply good reasons. By analogy-- Back in the cold war 1950's and 1960's USA exchange students to Russia would have talks with the Russian students and get all around out-debated, because the Russian students not only knew their own system, but they also knew more about the USA system than most USA students. In order for the USA students to "properly defend their world view" they needed not only to know a lot more about the USA system, but they also needed to know a whole bunch about communism. It is GOOD to read the communist manifesto even if you decide it is complete malarky. You have to understand the other guy's arguments in order to effectively debate.

If you want a good solid christian conservative kid or whatever you expect, then if you don't expose him to all the other ideas, then later in life he will be defenseless against them. Ignorance is not bliss. Same way on the other side. If a liberal parent wants liberal kids, he better educate them with conservative ideas too, or later in life the kids might get "out-debated" and turn out conservative.

Though there is that old "youthful rebellion" angle. They tend to go for whatever is the opposite view of the parents, at least til they get to age 30 or even 40, then finally the old man ain't such a moron any more. So our next generation of conservatives will greatly come from liberal parents and vice-versa.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Oh, I agree with you Lester, but it's the lack of balance that can reside in the texts they teach from. Remember the

Texas school book argument, what, last year or so?

Your last paragraph is painfully familiar. Agreed.

[Smith]

Yeah I suppose they could ruin it, but OTOH if an intelligent liberal weenie is teaching math or chemistry and he is actually teaching the material, the liberal weeniness of it all would only be a minor distraction and you would still learn the math or chem. I'm not doubting that they managed to wrap the philosophy in an unappetising package for ya, but it is difficult to see how they could ruin it too badly if they are teaching the subject matter.

The following is me going off on a tangent rant. It's not directed at you, Jonnin.

Were Plato, Aristotle, Kant or Nietzsche liberals or conservatives? It is almost a nonsensical question.

Though they don't specifically teach philosophy in calculus 101, the entire foundation of math is philosophy. Science couldn't be science without epistemology. Ya get deep enough into science and it gets pretty dang philosophical. When scientists are insufficiently aware of the philosophical foundations we tend to get nutty corruptions such as global warming fascism or eugenics.

The heavy-hitters among the founding fathers knew philosophy forward and back, took it serious as a heart attack. I don't know if a person could read the founders' papers and have a decent understanding of the conversations without some familiarity with philsophy.

Dang it, LOGIC is still taught by the philosophy department to this day! How are ya gonna do much of anything, or even carry on proper debates, without logic? Is logic conservative or liberal?

Hi 6.8

Maybe they can ruin it, but it would be hard to brainwash somebody by properly teaching philosophy because you are dumping into their heads the ideas of zillions of old guys with beards, each one with a completely different take. I don't see how you could expose a student to a zillion different ways of looking at something, and at the same time brainwash em into one point of view. But I suppose it is possible.

I think that people don't really know what they believe until they figure it out and can supply good reasons. By analogy-- Back in the cold war 1950's and 1960's USA exchange students to Russia would have talks with the Russian students and get all around out-debated, because the Russian students not only knew their own system, but they also knew more about the USA system than most USA students. In order for the USA students to "properly defend their world view" they needed not only to know a lot more about the USA system, but they also needed to know a whole bunch about communism. It is GOOD to read the communist manifesto even if you decide it is complete malarky. You have to understand the other guy's arguments in order to effectively debate.

If you want a good solid christian conservative kid or whatever you expect, then if you don't expose him to all the other ideas, then later in life he will be defenseless against them. Ignorance is not bliss. Same way on the other side. If a liberal parent wants liberal kids, he better educate them with conservative ideas too, or later in life the kids might get "out-debated" and turn out conservative.

Though there is that old "youthful rebellion" angle. They tend to go for whatever is the opposite view of the parents, at least til they get to age 30 or even 40, then finally the old man ain't such a moron any more. So our next generation of conservatives will greatly come from liberal parents and vice-versa.

Lester I understand where you are coming from but you are neglecting one variable - Relativism. All things are either eternally fact/fiction or they are relative. The issues I had was that the liberal mindset were the same old reincarnations of relativism. Plato and Aristotle were fundamentally conservative in todays terminology, where as Kant, Russell and Nietzsche were fundamentally liberal. How can you quantify that? By applying what has been found to be true backwards.

You are correct that philosophy MUST be taught. My problem was always that it was packaged to present one world life view as truth that could not back itself up with known fact. Heck even Russell basically discredited his entire career at the end of his life. The equation would go like this - 2+2=4 but we don't like that because it doesn't fit with what we want it to be so we will keep looking for a philosophical argument that gets us what we want. It was very frustrating. Also, the interpretation of past philosophers and history were often redefined by the teachers and formated to fit their narrative. It wasn't a simple matter of information passed on, butinformation shaped the way they wanted it to be presented.

I personally would much rather have a Greek education based system but we will never see that becasue it is not controlled by the system but rather the student, fact, logic, and factual history.

[dats82]

Guess I'll be the minority here. As a current college student I welcome these "garbage" classes. I prefer examining all viewpoints rather than having my head stuck in the mud. I greatly enjoyed my philosophy and literature classes. Heck, my British Lit classes have been the most enjoyable class I've taken. If a student is too stupid to not be able to form their own opinions by this point in their life, that's not really the fault of the school but rather their parents who didn't foster an environment that allowed their kids to explore their own identity. Yes, their are some professors who cram their viewpoint down the student's throat but they aren't as prevalent as you'd like to imagine.

Where are you in school?

I agree that a student should be able to form their own opinions; however, what is disturbing is when you are not allowed to form your own opinion. I cannot remember all the crap classes I have had to take along the way, but I absolutely remember one of the last classes I had at UT. It was a bioethics class taught by a bike riding, hairy legged, hippie chick who would only accept a paper if it parallelled with her ideals. (I did score well in the class, so I am not just ranting about a poor grade.)

This is really the problem. I have no problem being open minded and listening objectively to a discussion; however, it is absolutely wrong to force a person into accepting one position or the other.

I do believe this problem is as rampant as people say it is in our education system. I think it is trickling down it to the primary schools more and more. I do not remember any specific examples prior to college, but I have experienced similar situations in both state and private institutions on the undergraduate and graduate levels. It seems like everyone wants you to be open minded as long as it does not lead to an opinion and belief that could be construed to be that of a conservative christian.

[Guest bkelm18]

Where are you in school?

I agree that a student should be able to form their own opinions; however, what is disturbing is when you are not allowed to form your own opinion. I cannot remember all the crap classes I have had to take along the way, but I absolutely remember one of the last classes I had at UT. It was a bioethics class taught by a bike riding, hairy legged, hippie chick who would only accept a paper if it parallelled with her ideals. (I did score well in the class, so I am not just ranting about a poor grade.)

This is really the problem. I have no problem being open minded and listening objectively to a discussion; however, it is absolutely wrong to force a person into accepting one position or the other.

I do believe this problem is as rampant as people say it is in our education system. I think it is trickling down it to the primary schools more and more. I do not remember any specific examples prior to college, but I have experienced similar situations in both state and private institutions on the undergraduate and graduate levels. It seems like everyone wants you to be open minded as long as it does not lead to an opinion and belief that could be construed to be that of a conservative christian.

I think this is one of those problems that people find because they are looking for it. Like I said, if a student doesn't know how to think critically and form their own opinions by college, something has gone wrong somewhere. Higher education is a bastion of liberal thinking, always has been, always will be. That's just the way it is. Just take the classes, recognize others have differing views, and move on. If the professor wants to play a game, play their game and move on. I mean that's just life. If you want a christian education, there are christian colleges. I just think it's silly to fret over it, but that's just my opinion of course.

And I'm entering my junior year at UTK.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Lester I understand where you are coming from but you are neglecting one variable - Relativism. All things are either eternally fact/fiction or they are relative. The issues I had was that the liberal mindset were the same old reincarnations of relativism. Plato and Aristotle were fundamentally conservative in todays terminology, where as Kant, Russell and Nietzsche were fundamentally liberal. How can you quantify that? By applying what has been found to be true backwards.

You are correct that philosophy MUST be taught. My problem was always that it was packaged to present one world life view as truth that could not back itself up with known fact. Heck even Russell basically discredited his entire career at the end of his life. The equation would go like this - 2+2=4 but we don't like that because it doesn't fit with what we want it to be so we will keep looking for a philosophical argument that gets us what we want. It was very frustrating. Also, the interpretation of past philosophers and history were often redefined by the teachers and formated to fit their narrative. It wasn't a simple matter of information passed on, but information shaped the way they wanted it to be presented.

Thanks for the good ideas Smith

It is a shame if the material is edited to support an agenda. Though perhaps an authoritarian liberal education agenda is ultimately a good thing, because of the inherent ornery-ness of humans, especially the young ones. If the education establishment gets real authoritarian with a party line, then it only engenders revolt and questioning of that party line among our little darlings. Why do you think the USA veered so liberal in the 1960's? If mom and dad in the 1950's had been pushing liberal ideas then the nation would have veered conservative in the 1960's. Or maybe not. It just seems likely but I'm more often than not incorrect.

Due to my belief in relativism, it is fine with me if you don't like it. You are at least as likely correct as me, assuming that anything in that realm is "correct". I personally don't think that relativism has anything to do with whether a person would be "conservative" or "liberal", "capitalist" or "communist". Perhaps some "intellectuals" give lip-service to relativism, but if they become dogmatic in pushing that point of view they are practicing "non-relativism" and are in reality just as absolutist as any other absolutist.

That original posted american thinker blog seemed to decry the ABSENCE of relativism in the complained-about textbooks, for instance--

Dr. Rachels defends the one-sided presentation of some issues by simply noting that among other reasons, the "pro-con" structure of many anthologies "suggests to students that equally good arguments exist on every side of every issue."

If that truly represents the practice and world-view of the author then it is the very antithesis of relativism.

Absolutes are fine by me, just never could believe it. You are welcome to believe it. More power to you. By junior high I had provisionally decided that absolutes are faulty, and in college when I found out about classical greek skepticism was sorely disappointed because thought I had thunk it up all by myself, and those old barefoot guys with beards had beat me to it by more than two millenia! Everyone is welcome to their own view, but to me the classical skeptics made the tightest most logically-consistent case. Sometimes thought that people kept inventing new philosophies after that date merely because they were uncomfortable with the skeptic answers, rather than anything in particular being wrong with the theories. Classical skepticism, relativism, some parts of existentialism, all fit together like hand in glove. But it didn't turn me into a commie prevert! I was already "ruined" long before the philosophy perfessers got their mitts on me.

Note for any curious lurkers, classical skepticism is different than the modern dictionary definition. This wikipedia article is surprisingly complete on the topic--

http://en.wikipedia....ical_skepticism

Just trivia, dunno if Nietzsche is fundamentally "liberal" depending on one's definition of the word. Maybe. Ain't an expert. A typical philosopher up to that time was obsessed with the task of sledge-hammering everything in the world into his own trademarked philosophical "theory of everything" but Nietzsche gave that up and just spewed out whatever he happened to be thinking that day. Damn the contradictions and full speed ahead. There is a little something for everybody. For instance Ayn Rand is more properly libertarian than conservative though conservatives enjoy reading Rand. She is at least a sympatico conservative fellow-traveller. On the other hand it isn't super-difficult to find instances where Rand and Nietzsche appear to be beating the exact same drum.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Jonnin]

the class I had was exclusively on Kant and some book he wrote that used the word paradigm like 8000 times. It was supposed to be intro and overview but the professor decided that the one guy was sufficient to study and of the utmost importance. That is how you ruin the subject, I guess

I disagree that global warming is due to a philosophy problem. Science is pretty pure --- you observe something, and you figure out why whatever you saw happened via a model or theory, then you test that to see if you were right, and so on. This process broke down with the global warming and other modern bad science because the science is funded. The sponsor has a foregone conclusion and the scientists must prove it or lose funding. So they create a model that matches the forgone conclusion instead of what is observed via experiment. The only philosophy here is the eternal debate over ethics, not related to the bad science.

The same thing happens over and over again with funded science. A company is hired to prove that eating nothing except red food coloring causes cancer, and they prove it. Another group is hired to show that eating realistic amounts of the same does not cause cancer. So the first sponser hires another group to show that the second group was wrong. Back and forth it goes, and whoever spends the most money on it gets the news blurb that shows their side of the story. Science this is not, its economics, really, pure economics combined with the standard lack of ethics that many people have whenever money is on the line.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The only thing philosophy has to do with being a conservative or liberal, is how you come to the conclusion,

based on what you use to fall into one political category or another. When a philosophy is based on a whim

or dream, it isn't philosophy. It is an ideology that is presented as a philosophy to cause a change in one's

beliefs based on false concepts. At least that's what I get out of it. Just my thoughts, but moral relativism is

based on having an "anything goes" attitude and is the cause of most of our problems in society today,

including what our kids are taught.

There is no good to come from an authoritarian view on a particular philosophy. They should all be taught to

show the student how to decide which philosophies are valid and which are not. Present them all and let them

thrive or fall apart based on their premise.

When that liberal professor uses his narrative to force a certain idea, regardless of what it is, he is cheating

the student. I choose reality and not fantasyland, but that's just me.

[Smith]

I disagree that global warming is due to a philosophy problem. Science is pretty pure --- you observe something, and you figure out why whatever you saw happened via a model or theory, then you test that to see if you were right, and so on. This process broke down with the global warming and other modern bad science because the science is funded. The sponsor has a foregone conclusion and the scientists must prove it or lose funding. So they create a model that matches the forgone conclusion instead of what is observed via experiment. The only philosophy here is the eternal debate over ethics, not related to the bad science.

It is indeed philosophical in nature. Science is not pure like you allued to for the very reasons you stated before. There have to be certain assumptions made not based on fact before an investigation of evedence is started. There are cases and disciplines were that doesn't apply but they are the minority. Global Warming starts with a philosophical idea that man is the creator and destroyer of all things he did not create. Essentially the God vs. Man argument. It boils down to whether or not we can destroy what we can not create and whether we are subject to fundamental laws of God/nature/physics etc. or whether we are only bound by our own mind/intellect/beliefs/discoveries etc.. That is the root of nearly all philosophical arguments.

Science is fully vested in philosophy and originally was understood to be the origin of science. Plato/Aristotle etc. are prime examples. The idea that they are separated and that science is pure fact while philosophy is pure theory of thought is a recent development.

While not the greatest movie ever, "Contact" tried to reconnect that bridge pretty clearly. A pretty good example IMO.

[gjohnsoniv]

I went to Sewanee for a year and half before transferring for engineering (still in college.) Can't say I liked that place, nothing but liberals and professors who say you should only support their view. It also had quite the load of philosophy, religion, and ethics you had to take. Actually had one of my professors write on a paper "not my view, minus 10." That didn't make me happy.

Edited April 11, 2012 by gjohnsoniv