Pissed off about education....

[Tahar Joblis]

I THOUGT WE SHOUD CUT SKOOLS FUNDS CAUSE WE DOESN'T NEDD THEM I LERND REEL GOD WITOT SKOOLS.

Or, as Pink Floyd more subtly put it, "We don't need no education," in a delightful double negative addressing the issue of propaganda replacing education.

What's needed, first and foremost, in education, is education. Not child care, not indoctrination, not a propaganda venue, education.

[Wilgrove]

I THOUGT WE SHOUD CUT SKOOLS FUNDS CAUSE WE DOESN'T NEDD THEM I LERND REEL GOD WITOT SKOOLS.

Or, as Pink Floyd more subtly put it, "We don't need no education," in a delightful double negative addressing the issue of propaganda replacing education.

What's needed, first and foremost, in education, is education. Not child care, not indoctrination, not a propaganda venue, education.

Agreed, we don't need kids who can parrot facts back to us, we need to teach kids critical thinking.

[Pope Joan]

I am irked when a home ec teacher makes more than I do.

Maybe the ed system needs to sort itself out a little bit in light of the current crunch, and then we'll talk.

I do think it's dumb to keep spending on sports, which teach things like cheating and substance abuse, while we cut back on academic courses. Maybe we could hire the art teachers to design the team uniforms and logo.

They did that in Montour Ohio back when i was in college. The ethically advanced school board decided to be democratic and let the students choose the school colors and mascot. After a busy underground campaign, the overwhelming choice was pink and white, with a team name of "the bunnies".

Now the embarrassed board had to figure out how to take this practical joke and make it acceptable for athletics and school spirit. They hired an art teacher, who devised an insane rabid rabbit mascot with red eyes and blood-dripping fangs.

See? Art can still play its role in modern education.

[Hatesmanville]

Apparently it's considered useless as it won't get you far (unless you are very good) in life.

[NERVUN]

I THOUGT WE SHOUD CUT SKOOLS FUNDS CAUSE WE DOESN'T NEDD THEM I LERND REEL GOD WITOT SKOOLS.

Or, as Pink Floyd more subtly put it, "We don't need no education," in a delightful double negative addressing the issue of propaganda replacing education.

What's needed, first and foremost, in education, is education. Not child care, not indoctrination, not a propaganda venue, education.

Agreed, we don't need kids who can parrot facts back to us, we need to teach kids critical thinking.

Just out of curiosity, how do you do that?

[Extreme Ironing]

I think people underestimate the importance of art in all its forms. Whenever you listen to music, read a comic/magazine, even just look around your house, you are perceiving forms of arts that others learnt and developed for peoples' use/enjoyment. Saying no-one needs to learn this is submitting to a whole generation without creativity. Even saying someone will learn it outside of school does not provide the socialisation/peer review of art that would be very beneficial in a school environment, as well as the mentoring of a teacher (a parent would rarely provide this and few could afford a private mentor).

[Levity]

I agree that the arts should be integral to education, just as any other subject is, but I also don't see each subject as totally discrete and would advocate for better interdisiplinary instruction.

You can study music, in addition to "appreciate this classical piece", from the standpoint of the math and physics of why things sound harmonious or not.
You can study the geometry of the composition of a painting.
You can study the physics and human physiology behind a ballet leap.
You would be hard pressed to get a good sense of a historical time period without considering the cultural artifacts of its people.
There are infinite possibilities for using art as a writing prompt.
You study the rhyme and meter of a poem, beacuse it's more than just pretty sounding words on a page.

Most of the scientists and mathematicians I know in fact pursue various art forms as a pastime, or were trained in the arts in addition to being trained in the hard sciences.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that compartmentalizing instruction into discrete courses without better integration of them is one of the main problems with how our education system teaches people to think. If you can get 100% on math exams, but can't see the math behind a piece of music, I'm not sure you really understand math or music.

[Triniteras]

Our mathematics and our sciences do not make us human, functional though they are. It is our culture and our art that do that.

If you give people too much culture without a balance in understanding it will just lead to fighting.

[Heaven Hieghts]

It infuriates me, but as an educator, my thoughts are not very important to the people who write our budget (or DON'T write our budget).

My school is cutting our P.E./computers and science teachers, and there's no word yet on whether we'll have a librarian. It's criminal.

My god! Thats terrible!

[Treznor]

The best way to maintain a pliant population is to undermine its education. First make being an intellectual something to be ashamed of, then start cutting "unnecessary" education.

So far it seems to be working like a charm in the US.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The best way to maintain a pliant population is to undermine its education. First make being an intellectual something to be ashamed of, then start cutting "unnecessary" education.

So far it seems to be working like a charm in the US.

It is very strange that the right actually scored political points by showing that Obama was educated and that he spoke well. You know a culture is fucked up when eloquence and intellect are seen as "elitism" and ignorance and intolerance are seen as "family values."

[Bluth Corporation]

Our mathematics and our sciences do not make us human, functional though they are. It is our culture and our art that do that.

Precisely correct; this is exactly why liberal arts and fine arts are more important than anything else.

[Treznor]

The best way to maintain a pliant population is to undermine its education. First make being an intellectual something to be ashamed of, then start cutting "unnecessary" education.

So far it seems to be working like a charm in the US.

It is very strange that the right actually scored political points by showing that Obama was educated and that he spoke well. You know a culture is fucked up when eloquence and intellect are seen as "elitism" and ignorance and intolerance are seen as "family values."

Strange? Yes. Unexpected? Not after the way the right has been attacking education and intellectuals for the past twenty years. Nowadays one of the worst insults you can receive from the right is to be called an "ivory tower academic," something I've always aspired to be.

This nation is truly fucked.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

As for those that say there's no creativity in science:

"Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there." - Richard Feynman

The things which are actually out there are far stranger than any fiction that we've ever written. Our ability to imagine is quite limited. Consider ever alien in science fiction. Are they ever really alien? No.

[Hayteria]

I agree that the arts should be integral to education, just as any other subject is, but I also don't see each subject as totally discrete and would advocate for better interdisiplinary instruction.

You can study music, in addition to "appreciate this classical piece", from the standpoint of the math and physics of why things sound harmonious or not.
You can study the geometry of the composition of a painting.
You can study the physics and human physiology behind a ballet leap.
You would be hard pressed to get a good sense of a historical time period without considering the cultural artifacts of its people.
There are infinite possibilities for using art as a writing prompt.
You study the rhyme and meter of a poem, beacuse it's more than just pretty sounding words on a page.

Most of the scientists and mathematicians I know in fact pursue various art forms as a pastime, or were trained in the arts in addition to being trained in the hard sciences.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that compartmentalizing instruction into discrete courses without better integration of them is one of the main problems with how our education system teaches people to think. If you can get 100% on math exams, but can't see the math behind a piece of music, I'm not sure you really understand math or music.

Well said, Levity. As someone who noticed significant overlap between subjects in school, and still notices it in university, I think encouraging people to be polymaths is a far better idea than just separating subjects.

[Hayteria]

I agree with you partially. Education is the last place you start cutting, not the first. However, I've never viewed the arts as important as Math, English, Science, or History.

But why? Why is it so insignificant?

Oscar Wilde probably explained it best:

“We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.”

Our mathematics and our sciences do not make us human, functional though they are. It is our culture and our art that do that.

How exactly does "art and culture" separate us from the other animals more so than math and science? I would've figured the more relevant difference was that we set up civilization with rules and standards and rights. In any case, just because art is something that some people intensely admire doesn't mean it needs to be required of people in public schools. Some people intensely admire the N64 Zelda games; should those be taught about in public school too?

[Treznor]

How exactly does "art and culture" separate us from the other animals more so than math and science? I would've figured the more relevant difference was that we set up civilization with rules and standards and rights. In any case, just because art is something that some people intensely admire doesn't mean it needs to be required of people in public schools. Some people intensely admire the N64 Zelda games; should those be taught about in public school too?

Bees can do math. Chimps can do math better than humans. I've never seen bees deliberately create art, although I will concede I haven't looked.

[Farnhamia]

But why? Why is it so insignificant?

Oscar Wilde probably explained it best:

“We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.”

Our mathematics and our sciences do not make us human, functional though they are. It is our culture and our art that do that.

How exactly does "art and culture" separate us from the other animals more so than math and science? I would've figured the more relevant difference was that we set up civilization with rules and standards and rights. In any case, just because art is something that some people intensely admire doesn't mean it needs to be required of people in public schools. Some people intensely admire the N64 Zelda games; should those be taught about in public school too?

I'd say art wins just on seniority ...

About 30,000 years old. Which is not to say that the artist didn't do this and then go calculate the number of bison in the nearby valley or something, but humans have been doing art for about as long as we've been humans.

[Hayteria]

How exactly does "art and culture" separate us from the other animals more so than math and science? I would've figured the more relevant difference was that we set up civilization with rules and standards and rights. In any case, just because art is something that some people intensely admire doesn't mean it needs to be required of people in public schools. Some people intensely admire the N64 Zelda games; should those be taught about in public school too?

Bees can do math. Chimps can do math better than humans. I've never seen bees deliberately create art, although I will concede I haven't looked.

Can bees do as much of a variety of math as humans though? And what if anything is your basis for the comment about chimps?

As for art, you never know what animals might consider "art"; part of the point of my post is that what's "art" is subjective. That's why I mentioned the N64 Zeldas. o.o

[Bluth Corporation]

You can study music, in addition to "appreciate this classical piece", from the standpoint of the math and physics of why things sound harmonious or not.
You can study the geometry of the composition of a painting.
You can study the physics and human physiology behind a ballet leap.
You study the rhyme and meter of a poem, beacuse it's more than just pretty sounding words on a page.

With the execptions of the examples I've removed from your list in my quote, everything you mention misses the whole point. Appreciating art is NOT about being able to reduce it down to its mechanical elements and identify and describe them.

Holism is your friend--not just of the piece but of its context within and references to broader culture.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

How exactly does "art and culture" separate us from the other animals more so than math and science? I would've figured the more relevant difference was that we set up civilization with rules and standards and rights. In any case, just because art is something that some people intensely admire doesn't mean it needs to be required of people in public schools. Some people intensely admire the N64 Zelda games; should those be taught about in public school too?

Bees can do math. Chimps can do math better than humans. I've never seen bees deliberately create art, although I will concede I haven't looked.

Orly?

[SaintB]

I agree with you partially. Education is the last place you start cutting, not the first. However, I've never viewed the arts as important as Math, English, Science, or History.

None of which would matter without art.

[Hayteria]

I agree with you partially. Education is the last place you start cutting, not the first. However, I've never viewed the arts as important as Math, English, Science, or History.

None of which would matter without art.

Why? And for that matter, why does art specifically need to be art as taught in school?

[SaintB]

I agree with you partially. Education is the last place you start cutting, not the first. However, I've never viewed the arts as important as Math, English, Science, or History.

None of which would matter without art.

Why? And for that matter, why does art specifically need to be art as taught in school?

Well if man had never taken the time to draw we would have never developed letters so we would never write things down for future generations to read. We would have never developed the symbols that we use in mathematics. Writing would not exist because like it or not when you draw a letter on paper its art. Most of the tools we created are in essence works of art and Archeology is the study of ancient cultures based mainly on looking at their artwork.
Where would we be without art? Still wandering the plains and being eaten by everything else.

Art is important today because it teaches children critical thinking skills, it also applies the concepts learned in your sacred math and science classes in a practical and more importantly fun way.

[Levity]

With the execptions of the examples I've removed from your list in my quote, everything you mention misses the whole point. Appreciating art is NOT about being able to reduce it down to its mechanical elements and identify and describe them.

Holism is your friend--not just of the piece but of its context within and references to broader culture.

To think that expression and beauty and aesthetics and culture and giving voice is somehow disconnected from patterns and the natural world around us is, I believe, misguided and wrong. I would argue that to understand how something works makes me appreciate its beauty even more, and does not "reduce" it to its parts.

Anecdotally:

My daughter’s first lesson in geometry and learning the degrees of angles was in her ballet class well before she did it in school. You can’t go on pointe without understanding the physiology of your foot and ankle. Not safely. Incidentally, one of her ballet teachers – a woman who has danced in professonal ballet companies – is a biology professor by day.

I do glass art and photography as a hobby. Before I took classes in either, I could certainly look at a piece and be moved by it or appreciate the message it conveys. But understanding, now, the physical properties of glass, and how it behaves in a kiln makes me appreciate how process and construction is as much of a part of art as the end result is. Similarly with photography – part of learning to create that kind of art is composition and aesthetics, and the other part was (at least back when I learned it) the chemistry of working in the darkroom. It is impossible for me, as a glass or photography hobbist, to separate art from science.

I would also argue, as someone who now works in the field of adult literacy, that you can use art as a means for people who have been underserved by the education system (for one reason or another) to help them give context to subjects that they want to learn, like reading, math and science. I would see no evidence that this wouldn’t also work in a K-12 system, and in fact, know that it does.

Both the arts and the sciences are relevant, both are important, and both should be funded in public education. There is no art without science and math, and science and math are in turn, beautiful.