Why the us should cut useless courses from college degrees.

[SD_Film Artists]

I'm "mad" (actually just acadamically unimpressed rather than "mad" as you put it) at historical revisionists and hypocrites. You asked a simple question and you got a simple answer. Can you provide evidence that I'm not acadamically unimpressed at them? Do think that I secretly like them?



History contains politics, some of it more than others. Either way a good historian can take an objective viewpoint.

It's physically impossible to take an objective viewpoint, due to subconscious biases and such.

Even if there is subconscious bias they're at least trying to be objective, which is a lot better than purposely giving a one-sided view. For example, a host of a political debate has his own political views and maybe he's a member of one of the parties, but you don't know that because he gives everyone a roughly fair chance to have their say.

[Luniten]

Unless you are going to bring up specific examples or substantive basis for making a general statement about historical revisionism today, I don't see why I should take your claim of "historical revisionists and hypocrites" seriously.

I'm "mad" (actually just acadamically unimpressed rather than "mad" as you put it) at historical revisionists and hypocrites. You asked a simple question and you got a simple answer. Can you provide evidence that I'm not acadamically unimpressed at them? Do think that I secretly like them?

But do you have any evidence of the widespread academic dishonesty you are unimpressed by?

Then you dislike history. All of it. All history is political.

History contains politics, some of it more than others. Either way a good historian can take an objective viewpoint.

I mean, sort of. The problem with history is you get to a point where objective facts are very few, and very boring.
As an example, an essay I'm currently working on for my real world degree is "Was Athens ever a democracy?"
Will I be using hard, objective facts in this? Sure, absolutely, I think Cleisthenes' 508/7 reforms and their content will feature heavily. But without subjective interpretation from me and other authors this essay would be boring, and not worth reading or writing. The same is true of essentially all history: there are objective dates that are made interesting and relevant to the world by subjective interpretation.

[Dakini]

There's often a lot of talk about how to improve the education system in the US. Personally, there's one simple idea we can start with. Stop forcing classes on students that have nothing to do with their chosen field of study, or have little real world application like art or humanities. Not only would it save them time and money, but high schools could replace them with more useful subjects, such as teaching students how to file taxes. What say you NSG?

Arts and humanities are useful to help people learn how to express themselves in writing, which is rather important in life, even if you intend on having a career in a STEM field. Critical analysis of cultural works can also help students develop critical thinking skills which are sorely lacking in the general population.

If you're going to cut anything, you should cut business classes. Those are fuck all useless.

[Liriena]

History contains politics, some of it more than others. Either way a good historian can take an objective viewpoint.

No, they can't. Objectivity doesn't exist when your job is to collect information in an attempt to give a point in human history a cohesive, coherent description and explanation. Choosing what information is or isn't relevant to your description and explanation of history is necessarily a political decision. That decision-making is necessarily going to be conditioned by who you are socially, economically, culturally, politically, etc. A conservative American who subscribes to the great man theory of history will not tell you the history of 19th century Western Europe in the same way that a British Marxist or a French structuralist will, even if they are working with the same "raw materials". And neither of them will necessarily give you a "distorted" view of the events. Just different.

[Liriena]

There's often a lot of talk about how to improve the education system in the US. Personally, there's one simple idea we can start with. Stop forcing classes on students that have nothing to do with their chosen field of study, or have little real world application like art or humanities. Not only would it save them time and money, but high schools could replace them with more useful subjects, such as teaching students how to file taxes. What say you NSG?

Arts and humanities are useful to help people learn how to express themselves in writing, which is rather important in life, even if you intend on having a career in a STEM field. Critical analysis of cultural works can also help students develop critical thinking skills which are sorely lacking in the general population.

If you're going to cut anything, you should cut business classes. Those are fuck all useless.

As far as I can tell, business classes produce nothing but particularly pretentious managers at retail stores.

[SD_Film Artists]

I'm "mad" (actually just acadamically unimpressed rather than "mad" as you put it) at historical revisionists and hypocrites. You asked a simple question and you got a simple answer. Can you provide evidence that I'm not acadamically unimpressed at them? Do think that I secretly like them?

But do you have any evidence of the widespread academic dishonesty you are unimpressed by?

Labour wanting a bigger focus on slavery education; not dishonest in itself but it does tie in with the idea that the British Empire was all about slavery should always be about slavery, nothing good like 400 years of innovation.

People being supposedly anti-imperialist yet being ok with Argentina ignoring the exercised democratic right to self-determination (multiple referendi) and just straight-up invanding an island. I'm not saying that every pro-Argentine person is a dishonest hack but it is surprising just how imperialist anti-imperialists can be.

Rhodes scholarship controversy. You could objectively make the case that 'bad people' shouldn't be celebrated, but I think we all know the angle that campaign was coming from.

And before Liriena says 'Haha! those are British examples and you're British so it conforms to your own personal politics!' I'm simply using those examples because those are the ones which I know more about. I don't condone everything that the British Empire did and I'm happy to discuss French colonial history too.

History contains politics, some of it more than others. Either way a good historian can take an objective viewpoint.

I mean, sort of. The problem with history is you get to a point where objective facts are very few, and very boring.
As an example, an essay I'm currently working on for my real world degree is "Was Athens ever a democracy?"
Will I be using hard, objective facts in this? Sure, absolutely, I think Cleisthenes' 508/7 reforms and their content will feature heavily. But without subjective interpretation from me and other authors this essay would be boring, and not worth reading or writing. The same is true of essentially all history: there are objective dates that are made interesting and relevant to the world by subjective interpretation.

But that's not going to be blatant Spartan/Roman/Persian propaganda though, is it?

[Saiwania]

Arts and humanities are useful to help people learn how to express themselves in writing, which is rather important in life, even if you intend on having a career in a STEM field. Critical analysis of cultural works can also help students develop critical thinking skills which are sorely lacking in the general population.

If you're going to cut anything, you should cut business classes. Those are fuck all useless.

Business majors are supposed to teach accounting/financial stuff related to any business and presumably all that is needed to manage a business, whether its an existing one or something you're building up from scratch.

If the general population went to college by default for an awfully long time and most still don't retain critical thinking- I don't see how forcing more liberal arts courses is going to make people value it any more than now. In the end, people just want to recoup their investment in whatever form that may take. The more expensive colleges become, the more people feel like they're the customer and thus should be able to demand more from colleges in order to satisfy them enough to depart with more money.

What happens with writing is that you write the essay once, pass the course- and never do it ever again if whatever work they get into doesn't require it. Its only primarily academic or scientific research types that write formal papers on any regular basis.

[SD_Film Artists]

History contains politics, some of it more than others. Either way a good historian can take an objective viewpoint.

No, they can't. Objectivity doesn't exist when your job is to collect information in an attempt to give a point in human history a cohesive, coherent description and explanation. Choosing what information is or isn't relevant to your description and explanation of history is necessarily a political decision. That decision-making is necessarily going to be conditioned by who you are socially, economically, culturally, politically, etc. A conservative American who subscribes to the great man theory of history will not tell you the history of 19th century Western Europe in the same way that a British Marxist or a French structuralist will, even if they are working with the same "raw materials". And neither of them will necessarily give you a "distorted" view of the events. Just different.

By "objective" I didn't mean that they have to be a robot with no emotional involvement. Of course different people will making different editorial decisions.

[The Black Forrest]

Arts and humanities are useful to help people learn how to express themselves in writing, which is rather important in life, even if you intend on having a career in a STEM field. Critical analysis of cultural works can also help students develop critical thinking skills which are sorely lacking in the general population.

If you're going to cut anything, you should cut business classes. Those are fuck all useless.

As far as I can tell, business classes produce nothing but particularly pretentious managers at retail stores.

. I was going to answer this one but that has me laughing and says it......

[Dakini]

Arts and humanities are useful to help people learn how to express themselves in writing, which is rather important in life, even if you intend on having a career in a STEM field. Critical analysis of cultural works can also help students develop critical thinking skills which are sorely lacking in the general population.

If you're going to cut anything, you should cut business classes. Those are fuck all useless.

As far as I can tell, business classes produce nothing but particularly pretentious managers at retail stores.

The business majors I went to school with would brag about how their classes were mostly about "networking" (aka socialising with a heavy dose of ass kissing).

[The Black Forrest]

Arts and humanities are useful to help people learn how to express themselves in writing, which is rather important in life, even if you intend on having a career in a STEM field. Critical analysis of cultural works can also help students develop critical thinking skills which are sorely lacking in the general population.

If you're going to cut anything, you should cut business classes. Those are fuck all useless.

Business majors are supposed to teach accounting/financial stuff related to any business and presumably all that is needed to manage a business, whether its an existing one or something you're building up from scratch.

If the general population went to college by default for an awfully long time and most still don't retain critical thinking- I don't see how forcing more liberal arts courses is going to make people value it any more than now. In the end, people just want to recoup their investment in whatever form that may take. The more expensive colleges become, the more people feel like they're the customer and thus should be able to demand more from colleges in order to satisfy them enough to depart with more money.

What happens with writing is that you write the essay once, pass the course- and never do it ever again if whatever work they get into doesn't require it. Its only primarily academic or scientific research types that write formal papers on any regular basis.

As somehow who almost completed a bach in business administration, it doesn’t grant as much as you think. Sure it can help with budgest and a speed sheet. Can help knowing where to look for things in contract matters. It’s not something that will create a great many jobs.

People tend to hire tax professionals, purchase accounting software..... You don’t really need a business degree to start a business.

One thing to point out. Some of the most brilliant computer scientists I know or have worked with; had music degrees....

[Luniten]

But do you have any evidence of the widespread academic dishonesty you are unimpressed by?

Labour wanting a bigger focus on slavery education; not dishonest in itself but it does tie in with the idea that the British Empire was all about slavery should always be about slavery, nothing good like 400 years of innovation.

People being supposedly anti-imperialist yet being ok with Argentina ignoring the exercised democratic right to self-determination (multiple referendi) and just straight-up invanding an island. I'm not saying that every pro-Argentine person is a dishonest hack but it is surprising just how imperialist anti-imperialists can be.

Rhodes scholarship controversy. You could objectively make the case that 'bad people' shouldn't be celebrated, but I think we all know the angle that campaign was coming from.

And before Liriena says 'Haha! those are British examples and you're British so it conforms to your own personal politics!' I'm simply using those examples because those are the ones which I know more about. I don't condone everything that the British Empire did and I'm happy to discuss French colonial history too.

None of these really refer to academic dishonesty in the strictest sense (that is, dishonesty within academia), but I'll address them nonetheless. Just know that none of them are proof of a widespread academic campaign to change history into 'propaganda'.

When teaching the British Empire in school, it's necessary to cover all parts of it. Unfortunately, a large portion of the Empire was built around slavery, and so that does need to be covered, and I know when I did the Empire in year 8 I would have liked more than half a lesson on it. Having a larger part of the curriculum on slavery does not mean, however, that that is the only thing taught about the Empire, scientific innovation, cultural achievements, and the legacy in the Commonwealth were covered when I did the topic, and from what I know from younger siblings it still is. Telling both sides of the Empire is not the same as teaching that it was blanket bad, that does not happen and was never going to happen.

I actually don't know what you're getting at by talking about the Falklands. I'm also a Brit, and have never met or heard of anyone with any political opinion or job that thinks they should be given to Argentina against the will of the islanders. So, unless this is about Argentine academics, I'm at a loss here.

Which bit of the controversy? That women had no access to the scholarship (since redressed by creating an equal and parallel one)? Or that some people have made statements recognising the origin of the money? On this I agree with Mary Beard, essentially, if we want to keep using the money to fund this education, we do, somewhere, need to recognise the ethical challenge of it. But, this, again, isn't academic dishonesty. It's displaying facts about a white supremacist when we use his money to fund education.

I mean, sort of. The problem with history is you get to a point where objective facts are very few, and very boring.
As an example, an essay I'm currently working on for my real world degree is "Was Athens ever a democracy?"
Will I be using hard, objective facts in this? Sure, absolutely, I think Cleisthenes' 508/7 reforms and their content will feature heavily. But without subjective interpretation from me and other authors this essay would be boring, and not worth reading or writing. The same is true of essentially all history: there are objective dates that are made interesting and relevant to the world by subjective interpretation.

But that's not going to be blatant Spartan/Roman/Persian propaganda though, is it?

It's not, just as there is not blatant other propaganda in history today, not to any remarkable extent.

[Dakini]

Arts and humanities are useful to help people learn how to express themselves in writing, which is rather important in life, even if you intend on having a career in a STEM field. Critical analysis of cultural works can also help students develop critical thinking skills which are sorely lacking in the general population.

If you're going to cut anything, you should cut business classes. Those are fuck all useless.

Business majors are supposed to teach accounting/financial stuff related to any business and presumably all that is needed to manage a business, whether its an existing one or something you're building up from scratch.

If the general population went to college by default for an awfully long time and most still don't retain critical thinking- I don't see how forcing more liberal arts courses is going to make people value it any more than now. In the end, people just want to recoup their investment in whatever form that may take. The more expensive colleges become, the more people feel like they're the customer and thus should be able to demand more from colleges in order to satisfy them enough to depart with more money.

What happens with writing is that you write the essay once, pass the course- and never do it ever again if whatever work they get into doesn't require it. Its only primarily academic or scientific research types that write formal papers on any regular basis.

Being able to analyse a work and write about it in an essay isn't a skill that's only useful for writing essays. You don't have to write formal essays on a regular basis to benefit from being able to digest information and clearly express your ideas to others in writing. Being able to clearly explain your ideas or describe a problem you are having or being able to analyse a problem are all useful in a variety of jobs (e.g. if you ever have to express your ideas or explain a problem you are having at work to your boss or colleagues, being able to clearly articulate what you mean in writing is important). Hell, have you somehow managed to avoid applying for jobs that require cover letters or a CV? How do you plan on clearly articulating why you are the best person for the job if you can't write well?

University shouldn't cost a lot of money. The fact that it does is bullshit and mostly results in people taking whatever shit job they can get out of desperation because they need to pay off their student loans.

Education, in general, should be about enriching oneself first and foremost.

[Saiwania]

Hell, have you somehow managed to avoid applying for jobs that require cover letters or a CV? How do you plan on clearly articulating why you are the best person for the job if you can't write well?

University shouldn't cost a lot of money. The fact that it does is bullshit and mostly results in people taking whatever shit job they can get out of desperation because they need to pay off their student loans. Education, in general, should be about enriching oneself first and foremost.

Writing a cover letter/resume/CV doesn't equate to being a professional writer. Resumes have an easy to look up format that everyone follows and the page is only looked at by an HR person for 20 seconds or less at best, if its not a finalist contender. You can hire people or go online to make the most perfect resume that applies to you nowadays.

It is more about having certain key words and impressive work experience, along with maybe some nepotism than in having a flawless resume, so far as getting an interview goes.

I can't endorse people getting more education if it risks financially setting them back. Because it is so expensive now, people have no choice but to go into a field that pays well enough to pay off their student loans. The paradox is that the more education people have broadly speaking, the less valuable it is. The benefits of going to college are seemingly declining relative to the benefits it had in the mid 20th century when compared to now.

Its just no longer true that getting a higher education is affordable for anyone who wants to become very learned. Any solutions proposed to make tuition prices rational, are fairy dust and unicorns to me. All making it free means, is raising the tax burden for everyone. It doesn't force colleges to reign in costs or anything. It is at minimum, unfair to those that already had to pay lots of money to get to where they are now.

College campuses are so focused on building stupid crap/fancy amenities to attract wealthy people, instead of prioritizing the students' best interests and the actual curriculums being taught. There is no downward price pressure against colleges besides people being less willing to take out any loans to go.

[The Black Forrest]

Hell, have you somehow managed to avoid applying for jobs that require cover letters or a CV? How do you plan on clearly articulating why you are the best person for the job if you can't write well?

University shouldn't cost a lot of money. The fact that it does is bullshit and mostly results in people taking whatever shit job they can get out of desperation because they need to pay off their student loans. Education, in general, should be about enriching oneself first and foremost.

Writing a cover letter/resume/CV doesn't equate to being a professional writer. Resumes have an easy to look up format that everyone follows and the page is only looked at by an HR person for 20 seconds or less at best, if its not a finalist contender. You can hire people or go online to make the most perfect resume that applies to you nowadays.

It is more about having certain key words and impressive work experience, along with maybe some nepotism than in having a flawless resume, so far as getting an interview goes.

I can't endorse people getting more education if it risks financially setting them back. Because it is so expensive now, people have no choice but to go into a field that pays well enough to pay off their student loans. The paradox is that the more education people have broadly speaking, the less valuable it is. The benefits of going to college are seemingly declining relative to the benefits it had in the mid 20th century when compared to now.

Its just no longer true that getting a higher education is affordable for anyone who wants to become very learned. Any solutions proposed to make tuition prices rational, are fairy dust and unicorns to me. All making it free means, is raising the tax burden for everyone. It is at minimum, unfair to those that already had to pay lots of money to get to where they are now.

So only those who can pay should go to school? How unoriginal.

[Saiwania]

:D So only those who can pay should go to school? How unoriginal.

That's right. And if someone isn't wealthy but is very smart and capable, a scholarship can fund their entire tuition costs, if a donor believes that they're meant for college and will be a real asset if they fund their courses and supplies for them.

The long suffering parents of Millennials/Gen Z, have had quite enough in being expected to help contribute to a college fund if this isn't paying off, or otherwise getting ripped off by college/universities. The expectation is that with the right degree, someone qualifies for a stable job that can pay off any amount borrowed over time. Instead, too many people are leaving colleges with no impressive skills/knowledge to show for it, but do leave with a super Liberal/distorted view of the world that reality doesn't align with.

[The Black Forrest]

:D So only those who can pay should go to school? How unoriginal.

That's right. And if someone isn't wealthy but is very smart and capable, a scholarship can fund their entire tuition costs, if a donor believes that they're meant for college and will be a real asset if they fund their courses and supplies for them.

That exists now. Educated people are a good thing. Remove the profiteering and education costs will decline.

[SD_Film Artists]

Labour wanting a bigger focus on slavery education; not dishonest in itself but it does tie in with the idea that the British Empire was all about slavery should always be about slavery, nothing good like 400 years of innovation.

People being supposedly anti-imperialist yet being ok with Argentina ignoring the exercised democratic right to self-determination (multiple referendi) and just straight-up invanding an island. I'm not saying that every pro-Argentine person is a dishonest hack but it is surprising just how imperialist anti-imperialists can be.

Rhodes scholarship controversy. You could objectively make the case that 'bad people' shouldn't be celebrated, but I think we all know the angle that campaign was coming from.

And before Liriena says 'Haha! those are British examples and you're British so it conforms to your own personal politics!' I'm simply using those examples because those are the ones which I know more about. I don't condone everything that the British Empire did and I'm happy to discuss French colonial history too.

None of these really refer to academic dishonesty in the strictest sense (that is, dishonesty within academia)

I did mention academic dishonesty but the main issue is historical revisionism regardless of the person's equalifications or profession. Also it's not so much outright lies but instead judging people out of context and placing modern standards onto people who lived hundreds of years ago.

Just know that none of them are proof of a widespread academic campaign to change history into 'propaganda'.

I wouldn't say that there's a widespread 'campaign' as that would imply that revisionists are hive-mind all out for one purpose under a conspiracy. It would be more accurate to say there is a trend of customising history based on personal offence rather than if they were uniquely 'bad'; offencive not because of what they did, but instead who they did it to. London has one of the highest concentrations of US President statues in the world; should I campaign to remove the Washington ones because he fought against us?

It's obervable; In papers such as the Morning Star you can practically play bingo with how many times they say "imperialist" not because of what people are doing, but because a hang-over from the cold war has taught them to think that way.

When teaching the British Empire in school, it's necessary to cover all parts of it. Unfortunately, a large portion of the Empire was built around slavery, and so that does need to be covered, and I know when I did the Empire in year 8 I would have liked more than half a lesson on it. Having a larger part of the curriculum on slavery does not mean, however, that that is the only thing taught about the Empire, scientific innovation, cultural achievements, and the legacy in the Commonwealth were covered when I did the topic, and from what I know from younger siblings it still is. Telling both sides of the Empire is not the same as teaching that it was blanket bad, that does not happen and was never going to happen.

As I said, it was the political dogma behind it rather than the act itself.

I actually don't know what you're getting at by talking about the Falklands. I'm also a Brit, and have never met or heard of anyone with any political opinion or job that thinks they should be given to Argentina against the will of the islanders. So, unless this is about Argentine academics, I'm at a loss here.

Actually some Argentine academics support Britain.
Labour wanted to nogatiate and possibly gift the islands in the 70's and 80's. While Jeremy Corbyn hasn't gone as far as completely supporting Argentina, he has been praised by the Argentine embassedor as "“His decisive leadership can guide the British public opinion to promote dialogue between the governments of the United Kingdom and Argentina.”; dialogue sounds innocent enough, but the problem is that Argentina have done everything they can to make sure that the islanders don't get a say in the debate. Argentina's president even refused to take a hand-delivered invitation to talks with the islanders. Unless the Argentine government recognise the islanders' existance then any talk of democratic dialogue is a red herring.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar ... n-icm-poll

Britain should protect Falkland Islands 'at all costs', say 61% of voters. That is against just 32% who believe Britain must "be ready to negotiate with Argentina over the eventual handover" of this "distant outpost of a forgotten era".

Note that some of this is not intentional dishonesty or strict revisionism, but rather seeing a territory thousands of miles away and not realising the deeper issues involved. The point is that the islands are being judged on what they represent rather than on the specifics of the matter; at best it's lazy, at worst it's hypocritical since it's often done in the name of anti-colonialism. Indeed the UN Special Committee on Decolonization gave a non-binding decision that the islands should have a negotiated settlement to Falkland Islands issue.

Also since I've mentioned Corbyn twice, I'd like to make it clear that revisonism is not inherently a Labour or Left-wing thing. Right-wing groups likely do it too. It's just more clear from the left-wing side since the 'removing something because it's offensive' is, at least in my experience, something of a trope in that area.

Which bit of the controversy?

Removing historic figures.

[Chernoslavia]

Arts and humanities are useful to help people learn how to express themselves in writing, which is rather important in life, even if you intend on having a career in a STEM field. Critical analysis of cultural works can also help students develop critical thinking skills which are sorely lacking in the general population.

If you're going to cut anything, you should cut business classes. Those are fuck all useless.

As far as I can tell, business classes produce nothing but particularly pretentious managers at retail stores.

Words of a Communist.

[Dakini]

Hell, have you somehow managed to avoid applying for jobs that require cover letters or a CV? How do you plan on clearly articulating why you are the best person for the job if you can't write well?

University shouldn't cost a lot of money. The fact that it does is bullshit and mostly results in people taking whatever shit job they can get out of desperation because they need to pay off their student loans. Education, in general, should be about enriching oneself first and foremost.

Writing a cover letter/resume/CV doesn't equate to being a professional writer.

I never claimed that they did. A few undergraduate courses in the humanities don't make a person a professional writer either (nor does an entire undergraduate degree, for that matter). It does help someone be a better writer though.

Resumes have an easy to look up format that everyone follows

I suspect you don't have much experience applying for jobs if you think the format is the only thing that matters.

and the page is only looked at by an HR person for 20 seconds or less at best, if its not a finalist contender.

Which is why it's important to write something well enough that it won't be immediately tossed in the bin by someone quickly reading your application because they will just bin it once they find an obvious mistake and they will also bin it if you don't successfully convey the reasons you are suited for the position.

You can hire people or go online to make the most perfect resume that applies to you nowadays.

Ah yes, because you always have all the money to hire other people to write your CV and cover letters when you're unemployed.

It is more about having certain key words and impressive work experience, along with maybe some nepotism than in having a flawless resume, so far as getting an interview goes.

Keywords help and work experience is good, but if your CV is horribly written and riddled with errors, they won't bother with it. Why would they do that when they have applications written by people who took the time to make sure that there aren't any glaring mistakes? It shows really poor attention to detail when you have obvious mistakes on your CV or in your cover letter. Or it shows that your communication skills are lacking. Even knowing someone on the inside won't get you past HR if you blow the application entirely.

I can't endorse people getting more education if it risks financially setting them back. Because it is so expensive now, people have no choice but to go into a field that pays well enough to pay off their student loans. The paradox is that the more education people have broadly speaking, the less valuable it is. The benefits of going to college are seemingly declining relative to the benefits it had in the mid 20th century when compared to now.

Its just no longer true that getting a higher education is affordable for anyone who wants to become very learned. Any solutions proposed to make tuition prices rational, are fairy dust and unicorns to me. All making it free means, is raising the tax burden for everyone. It doesn't force colleges to reign in costs or anything. It is at minimum, unfair to those that already had to pay lots of money to get to where they are now.

I live somewhere that provides free university educations. It's not where I completed my studies, but free university educations exist in parts of the world. They're not "fairy dust and unicorns" at all.

College campuses are so focused on building stupid crap/fancy amenities to attract wealthy people, instead of prioritizing the students' best interests and the actual curriculums being taught. There is no downward price pressure against colleges besides people being less willing to take out any loans to go.

I don't think that amenities and "stupid crap" are the biggest waste of tuition funds. That would probably be overly inflated administrator salaries, but a lack of government funding to higher education also certainly plays a role in driving up tuition costs.

[Luniten]

None of these really refer to academic dishonesty in the strictest sense (that is, dishonesty within academia)

I did mention academic dishonesty but the main issue is historical revisionism regardless of the person's equalifications or profession. Also it's not so much outright lies but instead judging people out of context and placing modern standards onto people who lived hundreds of years ago.

Okay, I'd just like to mark this walk back from academic dishonesty, which is very serious, to "people said things I think take historical figures out of context." That idea is it's own complex issue, but I've still yet to see any proof that it's actually leading to anything that could be a problem.

Just know that none of them are proof of a widespread academic campaign to change history into 'propaganda'.

I wouldn't say that there's a widespread 'campaign' as that would imply that revisionists are hive-mind all out for one purpose under a conspiracy. It would be more accurate to say there is a trend of customising history based on personal offence rather than if they were uniquely 'bad'; offencive not because of what they did, but instead who they did it to. London has one of the highest concentrations of US President statues in the world; should I campaign to remove the Washington ones because he fought against us?

It's obervable; In papers such as the Morning Star you can practically play bingo with how many times they say "imperialist" not because of what people are doing, but because a hang-over from the cold war has taught them to think that way.

But, where? Saying that history is more complex than good and bad is not the same as changing the narrative from good to bad, it's adding the nuance of looking at how historical events and phenomena have affected more than just those tat have caused them. The World Wars caused a huge shift in women's rights, and including that in the narrative, including a discussion of where they were before, is important to those events as part of British history. Nice strawman by the way.

I'm kind of shocked that your best evidence is Morning Star bingo, a paper with an estimated circulation of just 10,000, that I think peaked in ~1947 with 118,000 (the Express was closing 4 million at that point). Hardly a Cold War hangover causing a change in historical narratives, even if we accept the most radical view of that as changing history.

When teaching the British Empire in school, it's necessary to cover all parts of it. Unfortunately, a large portion of the Empire was built around slavery, and so that does need to be covered, and I know when I did the Empire in year 8 I would have liked more than half a lesson on it. Having a larger part of the curriculum on slavery does not mean, however, that that is the only thing taught about the Empire, scientific innovation, cultural achievements, and the legacy in the Commonwealth were covered when I did the topic, and from what I know from younger siblings it still is. Telling both sides of the Empire is not the same as teaching that it was blanket bad, that does not happen and was never going to happen.

As I said, it was the political dogma behind it rather than the act itself.

So the personal intentions and deep beliefs, which you clearly know, are the problem, not the policies and their effects? These same effects that do not line up with the "dogma" you're claiming is behind them.

I actually don't know what you're getting at by talking about the Falklands. I'm also a Brit, and have never met or heard of anyone with any political opinion or job that thinks they should be given to Argentina against the will of the islanders. So, unless this is about Argentine academics, I'm at a loss here.

Actually some Argentine academics support Britain.
Labour wanted to nogatiate and possibly gift the islands in the 70's and 80's. While Jeremy Corbyn hasn't gone as far as completely supporting Argentina, he has been praised by the Argentine embassedor as "“His decisive leadership can guide the British public opinion to promote dialogue between the governments of the United Kingdom and Argentina.”; dialogue sounds innocent enough, but the problem is that Argentina have done everything they can to make sure that the islanders don't get a say in the debate. Argentina's president even refused to take a hand-delivered invitation to talks with the islanders. Unless the Argentine government recognise the islanders' existance then any talk of democratic dialogue is a red herring.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar ... n-icm-poll

Britain should protect Falkland Islands 'at all costs', say 61% of voters. That is against just 32% who believe Britain must "be ready to negotiate with Argentina over the eventual handover" of this "distant outpost of a forgotten era".

Note that some of this is not intentional dishonesty or strict revisionism, but rather seeing a territory thousands of miles away and not realising the deeper issues involved. The point is that the islands are being judged on what they represent rather than on the specifics of the matter; at best it's lazy, at worst it's hypocritical since it's often done in the name of anti-colonialism. Indeed the UN Special Committee on Decolonization gave a non-binding decision that the islands should have a negotiated settlement to Falkland Islands issue.

Also since I've mentioned Corbyn twice, I'd like to make it clear that revisonism is not inherently a Labour or Left-wing thing. Right-wing groups likely do it too. It's just more clear from the left-wing side since the 'removing something because it's offensive' is, at least in my experience, something of a trope in that area.

Yeah, but Argentine academics isn't the biggest demographic, even for academics.
I do agree with you that some politicians over 40 years ago being willing to let Argentina have a money sink bunch of islands is not historical revisionism, and the Argentine ambassador's comments, again, have literally no significance. This seems more suited to a discussion on nationalism being educated by the far right (as is the problem in Argentina), and the perpetuation of the "las islas malvinas!" cop out for Argentine governments in a sticky situation.

A final point here on the UN non-binding resolution: it's just that there should be a negotiated, peaceful settlement, ie no more war. That settlement could very well be that the islanders self-determination is respected, and I think it should be.

Which bit of the controversy?

Removing historic figures.

That hasn't happened, nobody of weight has called for this. Even if the scholarship was renamed, the most radical proposal, Rhodes would still be a morally complex historical figure taught in history classrooms.

[The East Marches II]

There's often a lot of talk about how to improve the education system in the US. Personally, there's one simple idea we can start with. Stop forcing classes on students that have nothing to do with their chosen field of study, or have little real world application like art or humanities. Not only would it save them time and money, but high schools could replace them with more useful subjects, such as teaching students how to file taxes. What say you NSG?

Arts and humanities are useful to help people learn how to express themselves in writing, which is rather important in life, even if you intend on having a career in a STEM field. Critical analysis of cultural works can also help students develop critical thinking skills which are sorely lacking in the general population.

If you're going to cut anything, you should cut business classes. Those are fuck all useless.

If the goal is critical thinking, I'm not sure we as a society want the places bringing about kangaroo courts for men teaching that sort of thing. They themselves are clearly incapable of it.

[Kubra]

They don't, and are arguing from a position of that lack of understanding and education.

I've twice said that my liberal arts education allowed me to shift gears and move from one career to two others with little problem and been asked "How are we supposed to change our major halfway through it?"

I never had to change my major, because my education was broad enough to fit into many different fields. Did I specialize at all? Of course. But my broad base of knowledge gives me an advantage in being able to get into many different careers/disciplines.

Specializing too much can lead to a situation where you are unemployable if there are too many $degree majors in a narrow field out there, or if your skills are obsolete before you even graduated. I mean when I was in college in the late 80s/early 90s they were phasing out PUNCH CARDS in the computer classes -- while I had a 386 PC on my desk at home.

As far as I know punch cards went the way of the dodo in business in the mid 70s at the latest.

1) They are not useless
2) Why? They can study what they want with their free college program.

So you're asking the rest of us to walk past you if you're bleeding out in the street, and not to call for an ambulance, the police, or even ask you if you need help. Because it's not our problem and you don't care about an imaginary social contract.


Perhaps you should not go to school at all since you don't seem to comprehend that mandatory courses are there because the college you go to has deemed them necessary for an education.

I comprehend you just fine. You're just insisting on something that's ridiculous, that could be solved by researching and going to a school that offers the ridiculously narrow focus you want rather than wailing about how it's not fair that the schools you want to go to/went to required a core curriculum.


Or make your own school.

Or go to one that reflects your philosophy.

Really, your argument is "I want to see an Avengers movie! But I don't want to see the Hulk or Hawkeye. They should be cut out of the movie, or I should pay less because I don't want them there!"

"I want to buy a car! But I don't intend to use the safety belts or the horn, so they should be removed and I shouldn't have to pay for them!"

"I want to eat Tiramisu! but I can't stand espresso, so make it without it!"

1. Of course you have to jump to the most ridiculous extreme. The chances I'll ever be in that scenario are basically nothing. But no, I wouldn't want someone like you to call me an ambulance. Because it would probably just lead to you turning around and claiming that I used a public service, so I can't complain when half my paycheck gets stolen in taxes.
2. Or just cut useless shit out of degrees. I don't understand the absolute tantrum throwing over this. All your argument boils down to is "I think these things are important so everyone should be forced to waste time on them! And if anyone dares suggest they shouldn't all kick my feet and scream they shouldn't go to school at all!" None of those scenarios are comparable because all of them are optional. I don't watch the avengers. I don't eat tiramisu. And I have no desire to own a car. There is no school in this country that isn't a trade school that doesn't require the studying of some form of useless garbage. Period. Please, name me one university in the US that only requires students to take courses in their major. I already went through this. I studied many courses that were nothing but useless shit. And I learned nothing. So what did I achieve besides wasting my time? And stop saying "just start your own school". That's a childish playground argument. If I had the money for that, I'd be doing much more useful things.

It's really simple, chum: we tend to value education as something that makes folks a little better than before they came out of it. They get some culture in em, think about the world as a whole, get unique perspectives, hold a political office, that sort of shit. You, it seems, do not much care for that sort of thing. Isn't our reaction only natural? Who can bring themselves to like folks who go to Paris simply to see their Disneyland? it's not even a good Disneyland.

[SD_Film Artists]

I did mention academic dishonesty but the main issue is historical revisionism regardless of the person's equalifications or profession. Also it's not so much outright lies but instead judging people out of context and placing modern standards onto people who lived hundreds of years ago.

Okay, I'd just like to mark this walk back from academic dishonesty, which is very serious, to "people said things I think take historical figures out of context."

Why would you need to "mark" it when I've already made it very clear? Would you like me to bold it next time? If you look back at my previous posts you'll see that I simply said that I dislike academic dishonesty within the larger topic of historical revisionism. You're the one who started talking about it in detail. See:

I just dislike political interference in history and academic dishonesty. If I was only defending the hypothetical dude because he conforms with my own politics then I'd be scarcely better than the revisionists.

I've still yet to see any proof that it's actually leading to anything that could be a problem.

I'd say that having a distorted view of history is a problem.

But, where? Saying that history is more complex than good and bad is not the same as changing the narrative from good to bad, it's adding the nuance of looking at how historical events and phenomena have affected more than just those tat have caused them. The World Wars caused a huge shift in women's rights, and including that in the narrative, including a discussion of where they were before, is important to those events as part of British history.

They're dotted all around the city.

I never said that we shouldn't learn about women's rights.

Nice strawman by the way.

Which part is the supposed strawman?

I'm kind of shocked that your best evidence is Morning Star bingo, a paper with an estimated circulation of just 10,000, that I think peaked in ~1947 with 118,000 (the Express was closing 4 million at that point).

Be shocked if you like. The fact that it's on the extreme niche end of the political spectrum only further demonstrates how crazy revisionism is.

Hardly a Cold War hangover causing a change in historical narratives, even if we accept the most radical view of that as changing history.

So there wasn't an anti-western bias? How else do you explain groups like StoptheWarCoalition only campaigning against US/UK wars? You could say that they're western politicians/activists so it makes sense to focus on their governments, but you'd think that they'd at least show some tiny bit of anti-war sentiment to non-western conflicts if their name is to be believed. As David Cameron said (and I don't normaly quote him); "Well some things come and go but there is one thing that is certain; whereever there is a brutal arab dictator in the world he'll have the support of the Honourable Gentleman [George Galloway]."

So the personal intentions and deep beliefs, which you clearly know, are the problem, not the policies and their effects? These same effects that do not line up with the "dogma" you're claiming is behind them.

I was making the point that teaching more about slavery does not automatically mean that the political party is unpatriotic; as with many things the devil is in the detail.

Yeah, but Argentine academics isn't the biggest demographic, even for academics.

I didn't say they were. I was just responding to your assertion that Argentine academics would be against the Falkland islanders.

the Argentine ambassador's comments, again, have literally no significance.

I said that Corbyn was sympathetic to Argentina in regards to the Falklands (if not totally supporting them). The Argentine ambassador gave favourable remarks about Corbyn on precicely that subject. yes I'd say that it's relevant.

A final point here on the UN non-binding resolution: it's just that there should be a negotiated, peaceful settlement, ie no more war. That settlement could very well be that the islanders self-determination is respected, and I think it should be.

I'll try not to talk further on the Falklands as it's already going far enough off-topic, but what I will say is that such a resolution is meaningless until the Argentine government recognises the Falkland islanders as a political entity rather than it simply being a Buenos Aires-London thing. Indeed it was at that exact converence that someone from the Falklands government tried to give an invitation of dialogue to Argentina's president, only to be ignored.

Removing historic figures.

That hasn't happened, nobody of weight has called for this. Even if the scholarship was renamed, the most radical proposal, Rhodes would still be a morally complex historical figure taught in history classrooms.

So "Rhodes Must Fall" is just a catchy title rather than a mission statement?

[SD_Film Artists]

[snip]