Study says boys do read, they just don't read books
MCP
don't read books. The article is unfortunately no longer online, but there
are comments about it around the web. (Article copy at angryharry.com -
Study says boys do read, they just don't read books). The problem may be
boredom with the reading material on the curriculum. Boys it seems read more
on the internet and memorise vast amounts of information from newspapers.
Research indicates boys are becoming literate "in spite of school
instruction," and may end up better prepared for a career because their
skills are more useful than being able to write a narrative or analyse a
work of fiction. It is unclear from the article if that is going to mean
that boys are better understood or helped or if boys are going to still be
expected to respond to the official reading and writing curriculum.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/forum/index.htm
Bob
> An article in the National Post of Canada, says that boys read, they just
> don't read books. The article is unfortunately no longer online, but there
> are comments about it around the web. (Article copy at angryharry.com -
> Study says boys do read, they just don't read books).
Boys have no use for the girly books they get handed in feminized
schools. What do they expect.
Bob
Mr. F. Le Mur
->An article in the National Post of Canada, says that boys read, they just
->don't read books. The article is unfortunately no longer online, but there
->are comments about it around the web. (Article copy at angryharry.com -
->Study says boys do read, they just don't read books). The problem may be
->boredom with the reading material on the curriculum. Boys it seems read more
->on the internet and memorise vast amounts of information from newspapers.
->Research indicates boys are becoming literate "in spite of school
->instruction," and may end up better prepared for a career because their
->skills are more useful than being able to write a narrative or analyse a
->work of fiction. It is unclear from the article if that is going to mean
I recall the last time I was supposed to analyze a work of fiction
in school - I wrote a little paper on why analyzing works of fiction
is a waste of time.
->that boys are better understood or helped or if boys are going to still be
->expected to respond to the official reading and writing curriculum.
->
->
->http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/forum/index.htm
->
Hyerdahl1
>From: Mr. F. Le Mur lemu...@comxcast.net
>Date: 8/4/03 7:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <kausivcer42dl8l6n...@4ax.com>
>
(Edit)
Well, reading bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn boxes simply don't pay the
rent.
Kathi Kelly
> hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) writes:
>(Edit)
>
>Well, reading bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn boxes simply don't pay the
>rent.
>
>
Carol Ann once again demonstrates her loathing of boys & men.
She also demonstrates to a tee what AH writes about in,
"Angry Harry's Blog."
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/secondaries/ah.htm
Similarities between feminism & Nazism.
- promotes the view the target group is inferior.
- promotes propaganda that leads to the target group being
constantly ridiculed.
- demonises the target group as perverts and sexual criminals.
- disseminated lies and disinformation about the target group
in order to promote her own ideology.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 8/19/2003 1:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3f428a41$0$566$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
>
>
>
>> hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) writes:
>
>>(Edit)
>>
>>Well, reading bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn boxes simply don't pay
>the
>>rent.
>>
>Carol Ann once again demonstrates her loathing of boys & men.
I'm not sure what "I" wrote has much to do with "Carol Ann", but what I wrote
has more to do with making fun of people who say that boys don't read books.
Of course boys read books; smart boys.
>She also demonstrates to a tee what AH writes about in,>"Angry Harry's Blog."
>http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/secondaries/ah.htm
>
>
>Similarities between feminism & Nazism.
>
>- promotes the view the target group is inferior.
>
I'm not the one promoting the notion that boys are inferior; boys who don't
read books are obviously getting an inferior education to boys who are. The
social group remains intact. People who suggest that boys, because they are
boys, don't read books are promoting much greater inferiority to boys than an
ideology that says, "of course boys read books...smart boys".
>- promotes propaganda that leads to the target group being>constantly
ridiculed.
>
The "target group" that I am ridiculing here is you and yours, dear. Boys who
read books will continue to get an education, while you are yours will continue
to complain that education should be dumbed down so that boys who don't read
books can catch up. I'm not buying.
Steve Imparl
(hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1)) ignored Kathi's point and posted more of her
usual garbage:
>>Subject: Re: Study says boys do read, they just don't read books
>>From: x...@mit.edu (Kathi Kelly)
>>Date: 8/19/2003 1:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3f428a41$0$566$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>>> hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) writes:
>>
>>>(Edit)
>>>
>>>Well, reading bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn boxes simply don't pay
>>the
>>>rent.
>>>
>>Carol Ann once again demonstrates her loathing of boys & men.
>
>I'm not sure what "I" wrote has much to do with "Carol Ann",
You are Carol Ann.
You are Hyer...@cs.com.
You are Gandilu...@aol.com
You are Chat...@aol.com.
You are Parg...@cs.com.
You are Par...@aol.com.
You are lef...@ix.netcom.com
but what I wrote
>has more to do with making fun of people who say that boys don't read books.
No. You were clearly making fun of boys.
>Of course boys read books; smart boys.
How does one define "smart"?
>>She also demonstrates to a tee what AH writes about in,>"Angry Harry's
>Blog."
>>http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/secondaries/ah.htm
>>
>>
>>Similarities between feminism & Nazism.
>>
>>- promotes the view the target group is inferior.
>>
>I'm not the one promoting the notion that boys are inferior;
Oh, give it a rest, Carol Ann! Do you think *anyone* who knows your sordid
past is going to believe you?
boys who don't
>read books are obviously getting an inferior education to boys who are.
It's all relative, "Pargeon."
The
>social group remains intact.
You are anti-social.
People who suggest that boys, because they are
>boys, don't read books are promoting much greater inferiority to boys than an
>ideology that says, "of course boys read books...smart boys".
You're the one who said that boys read "bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn
boxes."
So much for your ideology.
You spouted hate speech. Kathi caught you.
>>- promotes propaganda that leads to the target group being>constantly
>ridiculed.
>>
>The "target group" that I am ridiculing here is you and yours, dear.
Liar. You're a man- and boy-hater who got caught. Now you're trying to
backpedal.
Boys
>who
>read books will continue to get an education, while you are yours will
>continue
>to complain that education should be dumbed down so that boys who don't read
>books can catch up. I'm not buying.
Who gives a shit if you are "buying"? You're a stupid Gandiluminator. You
hate men and boys. You have no control over boys' education.
Come back when you get a clue, moron.
Steve Imparl
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 8/20/2003 2:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20030820174559...@mb-m12.aol.com>
>
>In Message-id: <20030820102721...@mb-m07.aol.com>, Hyerdung
>(hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1)) ignored Kathi's point and posted more of her
>usual garbage:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Study says boys do read, they just don't read books
>>>From: x...@mit.edu (Kathi Kelly)
>>>Date: 8/19/2003 1:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <3f428a41$0$566$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) writes:
>>>
>>>>(Edit)
>>>>
>>>>Well, reading bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn boxes simply don't pay
>>>the
>>>>rent.
>>>>
>>>Carol Ann once again demonstrates her loathing of boys & men.
>>
>>I'm not sure what "I" wrote has much to do with "Carol Ann",
>
>You are Carol Ann.
>You are Hyer...@cs.com.
>You are Gandilu...@aol.com
>You are Chat...@aol.com.
>You are Parg...@cs.com.
>You are Par...@aol.com.
>You are lef...@ix.netcom.com
>
>
>but what I wrote
>>has more to do with making fun of people who say that boys don't read books.
>
>
>No. You were clearly making fun of boys.
>
>>>Of course boys read books; smart boys.
>
>How does one define "smart"?
>
>Boys who understand that reading books is important to becoming educated.
>>>She also demonstrates to a tee what AH writes about in,>"Angry Harry's
>>Blog."
>>>http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/secondaries/ah.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>Similarities between feminism & Nazism.
>>>
>>>- promotes the view the target group is inferior.
>>>
>>I'm not the one promoting the notion that boys are inferior;
>
>Oh, give it a rest, Carol Ann! Do you think *anyone* who knows your sordid
>past is going to believe you?
No one here "knows" my "sordid past".
:-) Some certainly imagine they do.
>
>
>boys who don't>>read books are obviously getting an inferior education to boys
who are.
>
>It's all relative, "Pargeon."
>
No, Simp; those who vainly imagine that boys who don't read books are going
farther than boys who do are probably going to misconstrue just about
everything else too.
>
>The>>social group remains intact.
>
>You are anti-social.
>
You are anti-woman, but it really doesn't matter.
>
>People who suggest that boys, because they are>>boys, don't read books are
promoting much greater inferiority to boys than>an>>ideology that says, "of
course boys read books...smart boys".
>
>You're the one who said that boys read "bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn
>boxes."
>
No....I'm the one who suggested that those things don't make up for reading
books. Looks like you have a comprehension problem.
Greg
> >Subject: Re: Study says boys do read, they just don't read books
> >From: Mr. F. Le Mur lemu...@comxcast.net
> >Date: 8/4/03 7:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <kausivcer42dl8l6n...@4ax.com>
> >
> (Edit)
(Le Mur's writing restored)
> >I recall the last time I was supposed to analyze a work of fiction
> >in school - I wrote a little paper on why analyzing works of fiction
> >is a waste of time.
> Well, reading bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn boxes simply don't pay the
> rent.
And reading works of fiction will? Great! Next time the rent's due,
I'll just walk into the leasing office with a copy of _The Great
Gatsby_.
Really, do let us know when you find someone who pays you for reading
fiction.
Ralph DuBose
> In Message-id: <20030820102721...@mb-m07.aol.com>, Hyerdung
> (hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1)) ignored Kathi's point and posted more of her
> usual garbage:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Study says boys do read, they just don't read books
> >>From: x...@mit.edu (Kathi Kelly)
> >>Date: 8/19/2003 1:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <3f428a41$0$566$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) writes:
>
> >>>(Edit)
> >>>
> >>>Well, reading bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn boxes simply don't pay
> the
> >>>rent.
> >>>
> >>Carol Ann once again demonstrates her loathing of boys & men.
> >
Always keep in mind that with "Hyerdahl" you are dealing with the
type of woman who would poison old, helpless people in order to steal
their social security checks while smiling constantly at everyone she
meets and being very active and greatly respected at church.
Luckily, she comes onto usenet where her true nature gets
displayed, usually without her realizing it. And she lacks the
flexibility of mind to realize all the ways in which her evil
tendencies become apparent when there are surviving witnesses and a
good written record ...When you find this out about someone, give
thanks that it is not too late.
A moment of clarity is worth a thousand prayers.
Greg
The only possible escape for Parg is to say that she was merely making
fun of boys who don't read books. Any other attempted escape, such as
that above, is pure bullshit, and she knows it. Her own words give
her away. "Of course boys read books. Smart boys." The implication
being that boys who don't read books are dumb. Hence, at the very
least, she was making fun of boys who don't read books.
> No, I was clearly making fun of you. :-)
Really! You were making fun of Steve? Why? For not reading books?
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!
Steve is a practicing lawyer. One can be sure he's done plenty of
reading, and useful reading at that.
> >>>Of course boys read books; smart boys.
> >
> >How does one define "smart"?
> >
> >Boys who understand that reading books is important to becoming educated.
Why does it have to be books? Don't magazines, newspapers, and
internet articles count? Does it have to be _A Separate Peace_ for
the reader to be smart? What about a five-year-old with a
subscription to the Wall Street Journal?
> >>>She also demonstrates to a tee what AH writes about in,>"Angry Harry's
> Blog."
> >>>http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/secondaries/ah.htm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Similarities between feminism & Nazism.
> >>>
> >>>- promotes the view the target group is inferior.
> >>>
> >>I'm not the one promoting the notion that boys are inferior;
> >
> >Oh, give it a rest, Carol Ann! Do you think *anyone* who knows your sordid
> >past is going to believe you?
>
> No one here "knows" my "sordid past".
Indeed we do. Not all of it, but certainly more of it than we'd like
to know.
> :-) Some certainly imagine they do.
> >
> >
> >boys who don't>>read books are obviously getting an inferior education to boys
> who are.
So you're saying, right now, that the reading of _books_ is the only
way through which one may be properly educated, and nothing else will
do? Seems a rather absolute statement. Have you no creativity? Can
you imagine no other path?
> >It's all relative, "Pargeon."
> >
> No, Simp; those who vainly imagine that boys who don't read books are going
> farther than boys who do are probably going to misconstrue just about
> everything else too.
How would one _vainly_ imagine that boys don't read books? Why would
someone be arrogant by virtue of being part of a birth group whose
young tend not to read books?
You must be the world's most stupid person.
> >The>>social group remains intact.
Until unskilled, untalented, code-red feminazi teachers tell them that
boys are evil, and they must therefore act like girls. But that's
another post.
> >You are anti-social.
> >
> You are anti-woman, but it really doesn't matter.
No, your opinion doesn't matter. Thank you for finally acknowledging
that.
> >People who suggest that boys, because they are>>boys, don't read books are
> promoting much greater inferiority to boys
Wrong. They're trying to gain more insight into how boys learn so
they can improve the way boys are taught. This is a noble pursuit,
but only to those who actually think boys are human. To you, they're
just _males_, hence your contempt for the efforts of these
researchers.
> than>an>>ideology that says, "of
> course boys read books...smart boys".
> >
> >You're the one who said that boys read "bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn
> >boxes."
HAHAHAHA!! Pretend lawyer Parg should realize that once it's in
writing, she can't deny it. :)
[...]
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 8/20/2003 4:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ac57efe0.03082...@posting.google.com>
Actually, having some knowledge about the great works of fiction, including
Shakepeare, Austen, Zimmer-Bradley, Dickens etc. is a plus in the world of the
educated. AND, if you look again, the subject line is about "books" and not
just novels. Novels certainly play a part, however, in the generic education
of a well rounded person.
>
>Really, do let us know when you find someone who pays you for reading
>fiction.
Publishers pay Editors to "read fiction". Jackie Kennedy received money for
doing just that. But here's the thing, I can assure you that if you are
mingling with educated people, and you DON'T have a well rounded education,
they will think you boorish and move on.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Aleph Null
>
> Actually, having some knowledge about the great works of fiction,
> including Shakepeare, Austen, Zimmer-Bradley, Dickens etc. is a
> plus in the world of the educated. AND, if you look again, the
> subject line is about "books" and not just novels. Novels
> certainly play a part, however, in the generic education
> of a well rounded person.
I agree that additional education is always good. But then, it should
be apparent that it's not possible for everyone to learn everything,
and one must ask the question, what other educational opportunities
are being missed because of the focus on older works of fiction?
It's a strange oxymoron that liberal arts proponents decry the lack of
"well-rounded" education, but then would not be caught dead taking
even a single engineering course over the course of their lives. And
engineering courses are rarely if ever within the core curriculum of
any standard education that anyone receives.
To many, the hard sciences, engineering and mathematics do not form a
component of anything that is "well-rounded" (because they're
square?).
The real problem in liberal arts education for youngesters is not so
much that it is not necessary, but that most high-school teachers
within that realm are interested in liberal arts for the sake of
liberal arts.
Just as it was once true that basic mathematics and science education
used to be directed towards the theoretical and not the practical,
there is an over-emphasis on reading for the sake of reading and
writing for the sake of writing (i.e. creative writing). These types
of in-depth stidies are best left for subsequent studies that one may
take on an elective basis. Sure there should be a small required
component of some form of classical reading or another...
But many kids simply aren't interested in that. They would rather
learn how to write a PowerPoint presentation than write an essay about
a talking doll. Or, learn how to write a business letter, editorial,
or other argumentative piece.
Secondarily, the problem of policital correctness creeps into liberal
arts teaching in a much more insidious fashion, in comparison to the
sciences and engineering. Quite plainly, a lot of young men don't feel
comfortable writing about what it is that they really think, for fear
that they will fall grace in the eyes of their teachers.
Anyways, just my two thoughts. Nothing really controversial.
Bob
> Secondarily, the problem of policital correctness creeps into liberal
> arts teaching in a much more insidious fashion, in comparison to the
> sciences and engineering. Quite plainly, a lot of young men don't feel
> comfortable writing about what it is that they really think, for fear
> that they will fall grace in the eyes of their teachers.
>
> Anyways, just my two thoughts. Nothing really controversial.
The lack of men teaching liberal arts in K-12 is a significant part of
the problem. The books presented and the opinions presented are often
feminized and misandrist. Boys don't respond well to them, feel left
out, and have no man as role model in liberal arts education.
BTW: "Liberal" arts means the education of a "free" or liberated man.
It has nothing to do with leftist politics.
Bob
Mr. F. Le Mur
->It's a strange oxymoron that liberal arts proponents decry the lack of
->"well-rounded" education, but then would not be caught dead taking
->even a single engineering course over the course of their lives. And
->engineering courses are rarely if ever within the core curriculum of
->any standard education that anyone receives.
->
->To many, the hard sciences, engineering and mathematics do not form a
->component of anything that is "well-rounded" (because they're
->square?).
I think there's two reasons for that:
- The traditional definition of a "well rounded" education
predates actual science and engineering.
- Most people in college are basically too dumb to deal
with science and engineering on a non-trivial level,
so non-trivial requirements would be bad for the
edumacatin' business.
I'm amazed at how many people don't have the slightest idea
how "power," "energy," "work," "force," "momentum," etc,
relate to each other, especially when half the words
are in the news on a regular basis.
Mark Borgerson
lemu...@comxcast.net says...
depends on an understanding of calculus. Without that, it's
hard to build a mathematical model of the real world.
I would guess that the number of liberal arts students that
take a year of calculus is close to zero.
I know a lot more scientists and engineers who can paint, discuss art
and literature and politics, than I know literature majors who
can discuss science or engineering. A locally well-known watercolorist
who taught a community-college course I enjoyed is a retired professor
of botany. A former employer who is an internationally expert on
optical oceanography, paints quite well in what he called a "Dutch
post-impressionist" style.
It's obvious which group is getting the "well rounded education".
Mark Borgerson
Aleph Null
> Aleph Null wrote:
>> Secondarily, the problem of policital correctness creeps
>> into liberal arts teaching in a much more insidious fashion,
>> in comparison to the sciences and engineering. Quite plainly,
>> a lot of young men don't feel comfortable writing about\
>> what it is that they really think, for fear that they will
>> fall grace in the eyes of their teachers.
>
> the problem. The books presented and the opinions presented are often
> feminized and misandrist. Boys don't respond well to them, feel left
> out, and have no man as role model in liberal arts education.
Yes, that's certainly part of it. Even most of the male teachers
seemed to take on a rather feminized viewpoint. Though, I have to say
I was one of the few lucky ones. I was one of a minority in my school
who had a male English teacher one year who had a beard and rode a
motorcycle... Of course, he might have been gay (nothing wrong with
that), but he certainly didn't act like it (even better).
It's true that a small majority of books that we read were written by
men, but I wouldn't exactly have called them "male" books (male books
that I have read might be Neuromancer, Dune, Fight Club.)
I mean, I can understand why a girl might like to read about books
from the past, where all the women liberate themselves through
romanctic intrigue, rip open their bodices, have children, and are
treated with wonderfully romantic gestures by the good men and
unromantic gestures from the bad men. I mean, at least there is
something for a woman to sit back and smile about when it comes to
things such as that.
What does a young man have to read about in such books that is going
to want him to take interest and *want* to place himself in that
fantasy? Working in a coal mine? Being the last one to drown after
falling off the deck of the Titanic (thanks, Leonardo DiCaprio)? Sent
off to be massacred at the end of a civil war bayonet? A happy ending
to a book for a 15 year-old boy is when his wife and children get the
proceeds of a life insurance policy after he expires.
Seems to me that most of the men who have written fiction in previous
centuries weren't particularly "manly" men at all, with a few notable
exceptions (i.e. Mark Twain).
> BTW: "Liberal" arts means the education of a "free" or liberated man.
> It has nothing to do with leftist politics.
>
> Bob
I agree... Also, I don't think there is anything *wrong* with liberal
arts education. I just think that the perception that it is "well
rounded" is fallacious and elitist. It doesn't have to be.
Bob
> Bob <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F450693...@hotmail.com>...
>
>>Aleph Null wrote:
>>
>>>Secondarily, the problem of policital correctness creeps
>>>into liberal arts teaching in a much more insidious fashion,
>>>in comparison to the sciences and engineering. Quite plainly,
>>>a lot of young men don't feel comfortable writing about\
>>>what it is that they really think, for fear that they will
>>>fall grace in the eyes of their teachers.
>>
>>The lack of men teaching liberal arts in K-12 is a significant part of
>>the problem. The books presented and the opinions presented are often
>>feminized and misandrist. Boys don't respond well to them, feel left
>>out, and have no man as role model in liberal arts education.
>
>
> Yes, that's certainly part of it. Even most of the male teachers
> seemed to take on a rather feminized viewpoint. Though, I have to say
> I was one of the few lucky ones. I was one of a minority in my school
> who had a male English teacher one year who had a beard and rode a
> motorcycle... Of course, he might have been gay (nothing wrong with
> that), but he certainly didn't act like it (even better).
>
> It's true that a small majority of books that we read were written by
> men, but I wouldn't exactly have called them "male" books (male books
> that I have read might be Neuromancer, Dune, Fight Club.)
The one man teacher I had in elementary school was in the 5th grade. He
started a sharing library for boys to share their best books. We spent
all year reading, Heinlein, Clark, Asomove, Hardy Boys, and a bunch of
others.
Few boys are so lucky these days.
Bob
Mark Borgerson
4...@yahoo.com says...
You might add a few others:
Joseph Conrad---who was a ship captain in the british merchant marine.
Herman Melville: "In search of adventures, he shipped out in 1839 as a
cabin boy on the whaler Achushnet. He joined later the US Navy, and
started his years long voyages on ships, sailing both the Atlantic and
the South Seas. During these years he was a clerk and bookkeeper in
general store in Honolulu and lived briefly among the Typee cannibals in
the Marquesas Islands. Another ship rescued him and took him to
Tahiti."
http://www.online-literature.com/melville/
Edgar Rice Burroughs:
Edgar Rice Burroughs was born in Chicago, Illinois, into a prosperous
family. His father, George Tyler Burroughs, was a Civil War veteran.
Burroughs attended several private schools, including the Michigan
Military Academy, Orchar Lake (1892-95), where he was instructor and
assistant commandant (1895-96). He served in the 7th Cavalry in the
Arizona Territory (1896-97) and Illinois Reserve Militia (1918-19).
After military career Burroughs was owner of a stationery store in
Pocatello, Idaho (1898), and associated with American Battery Company,
Chicago (1899-03). In 1900 he married Emma Centennia Hulbert (divorced
in 1934); they had two sons and one daughter).
If I got picky about "last centuries" I could include the 1900s
and add in Hemingway, Jack London, Tim O'Brien, and Philip Caputo.
Mark Twaine was not alone in leading an adventurous life---it's just
that his own writing publicized his history better than other
authors.
>
> > BTW: "Liberal" arts means the education of a "free" or liberated man.
> > It has nothing to do with leftist politics.
> >
> > Bob
>
> I agree... Also, I don't think there is anything *wrong* with liberal
> arts education. I just think that the perception that it is "well
> rounded" is fallacious and elitist. It doesn't have to be.
>
True. And in Western Civilization today, you can't pretend to
understand society unless you understand technology and the
rapidity with which it is changing our social institutions.
Mark Borgerson
Aleph Null
>
> Well, reading bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn boxes simply don't pay the
> rent.
Bar signs? You mean bar codes? Bar codes have contributed *enormously*
towards paying rent for *a lot* of people all over the world. Without
it, we'd still be doing inventory control with pen and pencil. Without
it, enormous revolutions in manufacturing and distrubution would never
have happened. For example, bar coding was a major driving force
behind the globalization of Japanese-style manufacturing systems
(based in part on just-in-time inventory control, which absolutely
depends on -- you guessed it -- bar coding). It should be noted, that
just-in-time inventory control and bar coding were both invented here
in the United States, but never pracitally implemented until the
Japanese decided to actually implement it.
It might be an interesting experiment to walk through a durables isle
at your local department store. Target would be a good example. Look
at the labeling of country of manufacture for all the different goods
that are sold there.
In Target, you'll find that over 90 % of it is currently made in
China.
Now we can talk about the Federal Deficit and so forth, which is
largely based on taxes.
But the National Trade Deficit is currently on the order of $400
billion per year.
Given that a liberal arts education contributes very little, if
anything, to any type of economy that is in any sense exportable,
don't you think there is something to be said for maintaining some
measure of self-sufficiency on the part of our nation as a whole by
promoting our manufacturing community in some fruitful way?
Don't you think that the emphatic liberal arts emphasis on "human
qualities" in primary education has something to do with this? Is it
really necessary to indoctrinate children and convince them to
disparage technology-driven innovation, hate coroporations, and have
revusion for all things practical?
A vital manufacturing community is dependent not only on labor, but
also on detailed attention to manufacturing processes, automation to
remain competative with outside labor pools, and research and
development to discover of new and improved products and technologies
that add to the efficiency of the economy. We need to develop and
promote communities of engineers, manufacturers, and laborers who can
work together and exchange to reach a critical mass of innovations,
just in the way we cultivate academic environments. The Germans are
among the few industrialized countries that understood this properly,
but even they seem to be beginning to falter in recent years.
Consider that there is significant funding at the graduate level for
all manner of liberal arts and basic science education (NSF, arts
funding). Why is there little if an funding for graduate-level
training in the engineering disciplines? Because the government has
been over-run by a mob of erudite and downright snobby cultural
elitists who have an abbhorrance for all things practical. Compare
with arrogant British elite at the hight of the British Empire, who
came to look down their noses at outsiders and practical working
people as "savages" while sipping tea and spouting nonsense, and you
can see where the future of our economy is headed.
Yes, we substantial components humanities education to supplement our
technical skills - primarily in the arena of foreign language - in
order to remain competative on a global scale.
But how many more artists do we really need? I mean, really?
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 8/22/2003 10:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <7a3d5c77.03082...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20030804163117...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
>>
>> Well, reading bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn boxes simply don't pay
>the
>> rent.
>
>Bar signs? You mean bar codes? Bar codes have contributed *enormously*
>towards paying rent for *a lot* of people all over the world.
No...I meant "bar signs" like Romeo and Juliets Pizza. :-)
Without>it, we'd still be doing inventory control with pen and pencil. Without
>it, enormous revolutions in manufacturing and distrubution would never
>have happened. For example, bar coding was a major driving force
>behind the globalization of Japanese-style manufacturing systems
>(based in part on just-in-time inventory control, which absolutely
>depends on -- you guessed it -- bar coding). It should be noted, that
>just-in-time inventory control and bar coding were both invented here
>in the United States, but never pracitally implemented until the
>Japanese decided to actually implement it.
>
If you do a search on "invented barcodes" you will discover it has been claimed
by a number of people including the Irish. :-)
That being the case, you can't really "read" a barcode; you can certainly scan
one.
(Edit)
>Given that a liberal arts education contributes very little, if>anything, to
any type of economy that is in any sense exportable,don't you think there is
something to be said for maintaining some
>measure of self-sufficiency on the part of our nation as a whole by promoting
our manufacturing community in some fruitful way?
Sure. However I disagree with your interpretation of the benefits of a liberal
arts education. Most of those most tempted to put down such an education,
obviously don't have one. Self sufficientcy is a good thing whether or not you
have a liberal arts education, or can only scan barcodes. :-)
>
Steve Imparl
Hyerdung (hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1)) whined:
>>Subject: Re: Study says boys do read, they just don't read books
>>From: AlephN...@yahoo.com (Aleph Null)
>>Date: 8/22/2003 10:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <7a3d5c77.03082...@posting.google.com>
>>
>>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>>news:<20030804163117...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
>>>
>>> Well, reading bar signs, condom wrappers, and porn boxes simply don't pay
>>the
>>> rent.
>>
>>Bar signs? You mean bar codes? Bar codes have contributed *enormously*
>>towards paying rent for *a lot* of people all over the world.
>
>No...I meant "bar signs" like Romeo and Juliets Pizza. :-)
Oh, stuff it, Carol Ann! We've already pointed out the sexist nature of your
anti-boy comments in this thread.
> Without>it, we'd still be doing inventory control with pen and pencil.
>Without
>>it, enormous revolutions in manufacturing and distrubution would never
>>have happened. For example, bar coding was a major driving force
>>behind the globalization of Japanese-style manufacturing systems
>>(based in part on just-in-time inventory control, which absolutely
>>depends on -- you guessed it -- bar coding). It should be noted, that
>>just-in-time inventory control and bar coding were both invented here
>>in the United States, but never pracitally implemented until the
>>Japanese decided to actually implement it.
>>
>If you do a search on "invented barcodes" you will discover it has been
>claimed
>by a number of people including the Irish. :-)
Ethnic stereotypes alone?
>That being the case, you can't really "read" a barcode; you can certainly
>scan
>one.
Your attempt to split hairs over varying accepted definitions of words is what
you like to call "linear thinking." You're a hypocrite, Hyerdung!
>(Edit)
In your dreams, Carol Ann. You couldn't edit a logo and text on a cocktail
napkin!
>>Given that a liberal arts education contributes very little, if>anything, to
>any type of economy that is in any sense exportable,don't you think there is
>something to be said for maintaining some
>>measure of self-sufficiency on the part of our nation as a whole by
>promoting
>our manufacturing community in some fruitful way?
>
>Sure. However I disagree with your interpretation of the benefits of a
>liberal
>arts education.
Give us a reason why we should care.
>Most of those most tempted to put down such an education,
>obviously don't have one.
Prove it.
Self sufficientcy is a good thing whether or not
>you
>have a liberal arts education, or can only scan barcodes. :-)
In reality, no one is self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency is a notion that some
groups of people sometimes use to look down upon other groups of people or to
puff themselves up.
When you can look into a slice of apple pie and see the whole universe, you
will know that I'm speaking truth.
Steve Imparl
Hyerdahl1
>From: AlephN...@yahoo.com (Aleph Null)
>Message-id: <7a3d5c77.03082...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20030821104944...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
>>
>> Actually, having some knowledge about the great works of fiction,>>
including Shakepeare, Austen, Zimmer-Bradley, Dickens etc. is a> plus in the
world of the educated. AND, if you look again, the
> subject line is about "books" and not just novels. Novels> certainly play a
part, however, in the generic education
>> of a well rounded person.
>
>I agree that additional education is always good. But then, it should
>be apparent that it's not possible for everyone to learn everything,
>and one must ask the question, what other educational opportunities
>are being missed because of the focus on older works of fiction?
Here, we might well agree. Not everyone is able to become a Rhodes Scholar.
Some folks might be better situated by getting a generic education and then
going into technical school. However, even just a few short years ago, our
young people were getting a better education and were provided summer reading
lists. I think it's rather sad that we don't seem to encourage that level of
study.
>
>It's a strange oxymoron that liberal arts proponents decry the lack
of>"well-rounded" education, but then would not be caught dead taking even a
single engineering course over the course of their lives.
Well, not everyone is suited to engineering but everyone needs to be able to
converse about normal topics broached in educated company. However, most of
us could do with some generic programming classes.
And>engineering courses are rarely if ever within the core curriculum of>any
standard education that anyone receives.
While most people USE computers and internet functions, few people actually use
engineering in their everyday work. I'm not adverse to bringing engineering
into the mindset of those seeking education; I'm just suggesting that
engineering is not the be-all end-all as discovered by all those out of work
dot-commers. :-)
>
>To many, the hard sciences, engineering and mathematics do not form
a>component of anything that is "well-rounded" (because they're>square?).
>
Mathematics is, IMO, one of the most pure sciences, and is certainly important.
Science is necessary. No one is putting those down, I assure you. However,
the value of a well-rounded education is about much more than ones chosen
profession.
It's about the value you attribute to your own life, and how much you want to
invest in that.
>The real problem in liberal arts education for youngesters is not so>much that
it is not necessary, but that most high-school teachers within that realm are
interested in liberal arts for the sake of liberal arts.
>
Indeed. The notion of "pure education" for its own sake is one theory, and
while I believe in this theory, I also believe that there are other reasons to
engage in OTHER forms of education. One of those reasons is to secure or
acquire the means to make a living.
>Just as it was once true that basic mathematics and science education
>used to be directed towards the theoretical and not the practical,
>there is an over-emphasis on reading for the sake of reading and>writing for
the sake of writing (i.e. creative writing). These types>of in-depth stidies
are best left for subsequent studies that one may
>take on an elective basis. Sure there should be a small required>component of
some form of classical reading or another
As a former educator, I feel that reading and writing is crucial at many
different stages of educaitional development. A person who writes a paragraph
in the third grade is certainly not at the same level as a person who writes a
dissertation later on. You cannot get from third grade writing to doctorate
writing without steps in between.
And, even if your dissertation is in a field of engineering, I assure you
...you won't be able to write than on a third grade level.
:-)
>
>But many kids simply aren't interested in that. They would rather>learn how to
write a PowerPoint presentation than write an essay about>a talking doll.
What famous author has ever written an essay on a "talking doll"? Perhaps
you're so eager to make your point that you made this up?
Or, learn how to write a business letter, editorial,>or other argumentative
piece.
>
Last time I checked, writing a business letter was a literary endeavor. It
takes reading and writing, that is not at a third grade level. In fact, when
I first wrote a business letter, I used A BOOK of letters from which to choose.
My business class used a TEXT BOOK. :-)
>Secondarily, the problem of policital correctness creeps into liberal>arts
teaching in a much more insidious fashion, in comparison to the sciences and
engineering. Quite plainly, a lot of young men don't feel>comfortable writing
about what it is that they really think, for fear
>that they will fall grace in the eyes of their teachers.
>
????? That's just ridiculous. Trying to play an emotional cop-out game
doesn't make your point any moreso than pretending that engineering classes are
conducted without the use of books. :-)
Doug Laidlaw
Hi Steve. Looks as though the original point got lost somewhere.
Doug.
--
Registered Linux User No. 277548.
They say lightning never strikes twice in the same place. My typing is
about as accurate. Apologies for any typos that slip in. - Doug.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 8/21/2003 3:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <MPG.19aee31e5...@Netnews.Comcast.net>
Aside from engineering, I can agree with you. A well-rounded education with a
basis in the sciences is a thing to be desired. And, if engineers become
engineers by going to college and not merely by taking some scattered few
computer classes, :-) I'd assume most of them also have a well rounded
education.
Here's the thing, tho: they all have to read books.
A locally well-known watercolorist
>who taught a community-college course I enjoyed is a retired professor>of
botany. A former employer who is an internationally expert on
>optical oceanography, paints quite well in what he called a "Dutch
>post-impressionist" style.
>
Indeed. And all of them read books to get where they are.
>It's obvious which group is getting the "well rounded education".
Indeed, the group that reads books.
>
>Mark Borgerson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Aleph Null
>
> Here, we might well agree. Not everyone is able to become a
> Rhodes Scholar. Some folks might be better situated by
> getting a generic education and then going into technical
> school.
Or engineering school, or a math / science school...
... liberal arts does not equate with Rhodes Scholar.
> However, even just a few short years ago, our young people
> were getting a better education and were provided summer reading
> lists. I think it's rather sad that we don't seem to
> encourage that level of study.
Why were reading lists phased out?
Because kids weren't reading the books.
Why not? Because many of those children probably perceive (correctly)
that the material referred to on said reading lists was of little
practical value to them.
The correct response to this situation is not to dump the reading
lists, but to change the reading list to include other types of
written work that are educational and that children are motivated to
read.
Unfortunately, there are far too many professionals in the world of
public schools who are more interested in indoctrination than they are
in education. They have one social world-view, and they want to raise
a farm full of ants to be as much like them as possible. They see the
reading list not just as an opportunity to get kids to read, but a
chance to indoctrinate children with messages of whatever fluff they
as individuals elect to present.
If you're passing out a reading list for summer reading, it shouldn't
be necessary to pass out a single reading list which presumably
contains the one-size-fits all set of accepted and trademarked
literary works. You could, for example, pass out ten reading lists
profiled and adapted to ten different profiles of children, and then
allow children to choose the summer reading list most in line with
their interests.
Because without the guidance of a good reading list, most kids can't
find materials that are of high quality that they would enjoy looking
into. They buy or look up a few things on their own, then find out
that what they've picked and paid for is garbage. After doing this a
few times, they throw up their hands play a video game instead.
If you give them a reading list that looks unnecessarily boring (the
key word here being unnecessarily), then they're not going to
participate.
>> It's a strange oxymoron that liberal arts proponents
>> decry the lack of "well-rounded" education, but then
>> would not be caught dead taking even a single
>> engineering course over the course of their lives.
>
> Well, not everyone is suited to engineering but everyone
> needs to be able to converse about normal topics broached
> in educated company.
What's this? High-browed conversation over cocktails with rich people
(with whom the vast majority of Americans will probably never rub
elbows anyways) - this is the objective of the modern American
educational system? I would argue, such education is useful insofar as
there is substantive benefit to society derived from said
conversation. Otherwise, the benefit derives from the child's level of
interest and goes little further.
For example, a long time ago, the Bible used to be a common topic of
conversation among educated people. But then it began to be taught
less in school and - no surprise, the majority of "educated" people
(though not all) eventually moved on to talk about other things at
their cocktail parties.
The Catch-22 in this entire debate, is that the educational system
itself is responsible for *setting* the social climate that results in
the conversation being spoken at the cocktail party, which presumably
creates the demand for the education.
But really, what is the substantive merit? It's basically an adult
version of the Jordache genes craze. If we were in 80 % of the other
countries across the globe, Shakespeare wouldn't be taught at all; yet
the education in many circumstances would be a great deal better.
I'm not saying that there is no need for education in the liberal
arts. I'm just saying:
(1) The reading crisis in this country is getting kids to read, read
anything good.
(2) There is a latitude that English teachers have to choose materials
that may interest their students in reading and writing courses which
is NOT available in the hard sciences (where physical realities frame
the scope of the discussion). Despite this fact, a great majority of
English teachers elect not to exercise this latitude.
(3) Kids, always averse to suffering, are even less apt to endure
suffering which is known to them as being *unnecessary* i.e. that
there are better books out there that could have been chosen for them,
that weren't.
(4) If you force kid to read a book for no other apparent reason than
the fact that you yourself happened to like it, good luck. Chances
are, that if a teacher has read 1,000 books of fictional literature,
but never seen Terminator 2, they are going choose the wrong book for
their class.
(5) When it comes to the liberal arts, teachers have a tendency to
teach what interests other teachers with degrees in liberal arts,
rather than teaching what interests or benefits students. This really
should not come as any surprise. Education is a liberal arts
discipline. The majority of people who go into teaching come from a
liberal arts background. But, your obligation as a teacher is to
provide a service to all children, including that majority who will go
on to make different decisions from you.
> While most people USE computers and internet functions, few
> people actually use engineering in their everyday work. I'm not
> adverse to bringing engineering into the mindset of those
> seeking education; I'm just suggesting that engineering is
> not the be-all end-all as discovered by all those out of work
> dot-commers. :-)
Few people use Shakespeare. Few people use creative writing. Few
people use art. And, if the average Joe doesn't particularly have a
knack for creative writing, or a devotion to art, it's hardly going to
cost society nor the individual a great deal.
And if a majority of people in the U.S. don't use engineering and
science in their jobs today, it is in large part because the
educational system has done such an awful job of teaching it over the
last 50 years (therefore, the industries that support such jobs have
fled for greener pastures; this is an enormous social problem.)
I have a real problem with an educational system for writing and
reading that teaches:
(1) Culture to the exclusion of global politics
(2) Creative writing / literature review to the exclusion of objective
writing
(3) Art to the exclusion of design
(4) Literature to the exclusion of non-fiction
The world of liberal arts is broad enough that curricula could be more
precise tailored to the interests of the groups of children served.
As for the separate issue of science and engineering, consider the
fact that your average liberal-arts trained environmentalist:
(1) Does not, even in the broadest sense, know the relationship
between a "Watt" a "Joule" and a "BTU"
(2) Believes that, because an incandescent lamp is an older technology
that produces a nice "yellow" light that looks "natural", it must be
better than the compact florescent one.
(4) May relate to you some "good news about global warming - the ozone
hole is reported to be shrinking."
There are substantive things that people need to know about the world
to make responsible decisions.
> Mathematics is, IMO, one of the most pure sciences, and is certainly
> important. Science is necessary. No one is putting those down, I
> assure you. However, the value of a well-rounded education is
> about much more than ones chosen profession.
> It's about the value you attribute to your own life, and how much
> you want to invest in that.
Minimally well-rounded, perhaps. But one does not have to read Dickens
to be minimally well-rounded. Not any more than a liberal arts
professor needs to know about superconductivity to be considered the
same. For the purposes of a high school education, it's enough to know
how to read quickly, comprehend accurately, and write coherently.
> As a former educator, I feel that reading and writing is crucial
> at many different stages of educaitional development.
Reading and writing are certainly crucial.
But forcing a child to read Dickens and write poetry are *not*
essential to teaching children how to read and write. There are many
things that can substituted for Dickens and many things that can
substituted for poetry.
> A person who writes a paragraph in the third grade is certainly
> not at the same level as a person who writes a dissertation
> later on. You cannot get from third grade writing to doctorate
> writing without steps in between.
Dickens is not a *necessary* step between a child and any
dissertation, unless the dissertation would be on the topic of
Dickens.
> Last time I checked, writing a business letter was a literary endeavor. It
> takes reading and writing, that is not at a third grade level. In fact, when
> I first wrote a business letter, I used A BOOK of letters from which to choose.
> My business class used a TEXT BOOK. :-)
The article is not advocating the abandonment of textbooks. (Boys
already do fairly well in the math and sciences where textbooks are
required reading.) The article is talking about literature read in
English courses and elective or recreational reading that kids do at
home or at their own leisure. So any comparison to the reading of your
average Math or business textbook is clearly misplaced.
Parents want their boys to read more at home, but the message we offer
them is to withdraw 5 50 year-old novels from the local library and
say "read", rather than purchasing a subscription to Scientific
American, PC magazine, BusinessWeek, Wired, MSDN Magazine or
Psychology Today. Sure, many kids love reading Dickens. But most do
not, and would rather read something else. The irony of this is that,
when many of these parents were kids, they were probably reading comic
books instead of these very same books.
i.e. Boys do "read books about animals, sports and fantasy, and will
pick up magazines and newspapers to read hockey scores, entertainment
stories or news about things relevant to their lives, such as the
death of Napster." Now, I personally wouldn't want my kids reading
exclusively comic books and articles about Napster. But there are a
lot of materials out there that are not exactly fluff, have good
educational value outside of the realm of literature. *And* (in
contrast to Dickens), if you pick the right material, kids will be
more apt to read if it happens to be sitting next to their bed and
there is an article on the cover that catches their eye and draws them
to it. And if you give him a subscription to a magazine containing an
article about Napster, sometimes, they turn to the next page in the
magazine and stumble across something else interesting.
As for classroom teaching, the current dogma for literature is for the
teacher to identify classic novels that interest them most as a
literature professor, and then feed those novels to the children. Does
your average literature teacher know enough about animals or sports to
teach a for one week about it? Is he interested enough to make an
effort? Probably not. But then, whose responsibility should it be to
endure the "unnecessary" portion of the boredom? The children? Or the
teacher? Clearly, the majority of children simply aren't doing it. Who
is getting paid?
Is this book any good?
>> Secondarily, the problem of policital correctness creeps into
liberal
>> arts teaching in a much more insidious fashion, in comparison to
>> the sciences and engineering. Quite plainly, a lot of young men
>> don't feel comfortable writing about what it is that they really
think,
>> for fear that they will fall grace in the eyes of their teachers.
>
> ????? That's just ridiculous. Trying to play an emotional cop-out game
> doesn't make your point any moreso than pretending that engineering
> classes are conducted without the use of books. :-)
Trust me, it's happened to me, and it will continue to happen in the
future.
Not that I'm a big fan of guns... but just imagine your average 15
year-old kid writing a position essay about hunting & the right to
bear arms in your average public school system. Or, an article
regarding the adverse consequences of collective bargaining on social
welfare. When said paper is submitted and corrected, sit back and read
the snotty comments written in red ink on the margins. Junior will get
the message right away! :P
And while we're at it, when your social studies teacher hands out and
discusses a political editorial, the editorial doesn't *always* have
to be drawn from the New York Times. *Sometimes*, for example, it
might be drawn from the Weekly Standard.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 8/25/2003 8:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <7a3d5c77.03082...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20030823024036...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
>>
>> Here, we might well agree. Not everyone is able to become a> Rhodes
Scholar. Some folks might be better situated by>> getting a generic education
and then going into technical> school.
>
>Or engineering school, or a math / science school...
Sure.
>
>... liberal arts does not equate with Rhodes Scholar.
>
One needs some basic education in liberal arts in order to become a Rhodes
Scholar, however. Even just a few short years ago, our young people>> were
getting a better education and were provided summer reading lists. I think
it's rather sad that we don't seem to encourage that level of study.
>
>Why were reading lists phased out?
>
I don't know that they were; my own parents demanded that I read a certain
number of books from the list, so that someday, when someone refered to one of
the greek tragedies or to one of the famous characters from Dickens, that I
would not respond with a blank stare.
>Because kids weren't reading the books.
>
>Why not? Because many of those children probably perceive (correctly)
>that the material referred to on said reading lists was of little>practical
value to them.
Some of us regard reading the great classics, as well as wonderful new books,
like "The life of Pi" Yann Martel, as if an amazing world had opened up before
us, giving us new insight or creativity in our own lives. The practical value
of the novel is pretty much valued by most creative individuals in society.
However, novels are only one writing form as related to books.
>>The correct response to this situation is not to dump the reading>lists, but
to change the reading list to include other types of written work that are
educational and that children are motivated to
>read.
>
I'm a-ok with that.
>Unfortunately, there are far too many professionals in the world of>public
schools who are more interested in indoctrination than they are
>in education. They have one social world-view, and they want to raise
>a farm full of ants to be as much like them as possible. They see the
>reading list not just as an opportunity to get kids to read, but a
>chance to indoctrinate children with messages of whatever fluff they
>as individuals elect to present.
>
That's ridiculous. You're starting to sound a bit like those people who want
to eliminate Harry Potter books from the school library.
>If you're passing out a reading list for summer reading, it shouldn't>be
necessary to pass out a single reading list which presumably contains the
one-size-fits all set of accepted and trademarked>literary works.
The reading lists contained many, many choices when I went to school, from the
fourth grade adventure stories by Jack London and Nancy Drew to biographies of
famous people.
You could, for example, pass out ten reading lists>profiled and adapted to ten
different profiles of children, and then
>allow children to choose the summer reading list most in line with
>their interests.
>
I'm ok with that, but all children should be exposed to some of the classics.
>Because without the guidance of a good reading list, most kids can't>find
materials that are of high quality that they would enjoy looking into. They buy
or look up a few things on their own, then find out
>that what they've picked and paid for is garbage. After doing this a
>few times, they throw up their hands play a video game instead.
>
Well, I think video games have appeal on their own, and some kids are not as
self motivated and would rather be entertained.
>If you give them a reading list that looks unnecessarily boring (the>key word
here being unnecessarily), then they're not going to>participate.
>
Well, you can lead a horse to water...., but then don't come to me later and
shout that more girls are getting into college.
>>> It's a strange oxymoron that liberal arts proponents>>> decry the lack of
"well-rounded" education, but then
>>> would not be caught dead taking even a single>>> engineering course over
the course of their lives.
>>
>> Well, not everyone is suited to engineering but everyone> needs to be able
to converse about normal topics broached> in educated company.
>
>What's this? High-browed conversation over cocktails with rich people>(with
whom the vast majority of Americans will probably never rub elbows anyways) -
this is the objective of the modern American
>educational system?
The only way that would happen is if you intend on eliminating the middle
class. :-)
I assure you that you don't need to hang with millionaires to understand a joke
about "alas poor Yorick; I knew him well" or a comparison between "Gollum" and
"Uriah Heep".
I would argue, such education is useful insofar as>there is substantive benefit
to society derived from said>conversation.
I would argue that our nation thrives on the building blocks of language,
language arts and the beauty of the novel. I would argue that reading for the
sake of reading or for improving oneself is part of the magic of living, and
necessary to being a completely integrated human being.
Otherwise, the benefit derives from the child's level of>interest and goes
little further.
>
Children LOVE books and stories. My own children benefitted by having me read
aloud every evening from authors like Dickens and London and Ingalls-Wilder,
etc.
>For example, a long time ago, the Bible used to be a common topic
of>conversation among educated people. But then it began to be taught
>less in school and - no surprise, the majority of "educated" people
>(though not all) eventually moved on to talk about other things at
>their cocktail parties.
>
Not so. Biblical references and even jokes are still talked about and the
Bible is still the best selling book. More than 100 million bibles are sold
every year.
http://www.soon.org.uk/page19.htm
See just how wrong you can be?
>The Catch-22 in this entire debate, is that the educational system itself is
responsible for *setting* the social climate that results in the conversation
being spoken at the cocktail party, which presumably creates the demand for the
education.
So you seem to prefer having a party of computer nerds talking nothing except
engineering? I don't think that's likely.
>
>But really, what is the substantive merit? It's basically an adult>version of
the Jordache genes craze. If we were in 80 % of the other>countries across the
globe, Shakespeare wouldn't be taught at all; yet
>the education in many circumstances would be a great deal better.
>
Well, what country has a good reputation for education where the classics are
not taught at all?
>I'm not saying that there is no need for education in the liberal>arts. I'm
just saying:
>
>(1) The reading crisis in this country is getting kids to read, read>anything
good.
>
I'm ok with that, as long as some of the classics are included.
>(2) There is a latitude that English teachers have to choose materials
>that may interest their students in reading and writing courses which
>is NOT available in the hard sciences (where physical realities frame
>the scope of the discussion). Despite this fact, a great majority of
>English teachers elect not to exercise this latitude.
I have no objection at all in offering a course in technical writing which
would provide writing in the sciences, and math.
>
>(3) Kids, always averse to suffering, are even less apt to endure>suffering
which is known to them as being *unnecessary* i.e. that>there are better books
out there that could have been chosen for them,
>that weren't.
>
Nonsense! Kids should choose their own extra-curricular reading material from
selections of varied books, INCLUDING the some of the classics.
>(4) If you force kid to read a book for no other apparent reason than>the fact
that you yourself happened to like it, good luck. Chances>are, that if a
teacher has read 1,000 books of fictional literature,
>but never seen Terminator 2, they are going choose the wrong book for
>their class.
There is nothing particularly wrong in including books in the list that would
appeal to a kid who likes action movies, but it should not be the whole
enchilada and every kid should read some of the classics.
>(5) When it comes to the liberal arts, teachers have a tendency to>teach what
interests other teachers with degrees in liberal arts, rather than teaching
what interests or benefits students. This really
>should not come as any surprise.
Nonsense. Teachers tend to offer a HUGE variety of reading material, and the
students get to choose.
Education is a liberal arts>discipline. The majority of people who go into
teaching come from a>liberal arts background. But, your obligation as a teacher
is to provide a service to all children, including that majority who will go on
to make different decisions from you.
Again, most teachers offer a wide variety of reading materials on a huge list.
As a student, when being assigned a book report, the teachers would choose the
venue and I would choose the book/subject. If a teacher wants you to read a
biography, you could choose George Washington, or Gloria Steinem.
The project would have given the student experience with biography.
>
>> While most people USE computers and internet functions, few>> people
actually use engineering in their everyday work. I'm not adverse to bringing
engineering into the mindset of those
>> seeking education; I'm just suggesting that engineering is> not the be-all
end-all as discovered by all those out of work
>> dot-commers. :-)
>
>Few people use Shakespeare.
Everyone alludes to Shakespeare in numerous ways, and to not have any
acquaintance at all with his work shows a lack of education. We use his words
as mottos, jokes and to make points. How many people have responded "to be or
not to be, that is the question?" or "to thine own self be true", or "what's in
a name" etc. We take phrases from the Bible all the time as well, and from
other great authors, like Hemingway's famous "...for whom the bell tolls...it
tolls for thee..."
How foolish to deny our children the education handed down from generation to
generation from our great literary works.
Few people use creative writing. Few
>people use art. And, if the average Joe doesn't particularly have a
>knack for creative writing, or a devotion to art, it's hardly going to
>cost society nor the individual a great deal.
>
I'm ok with YOUR kids not getting exposure to liberal arts! :-) You can let
them be nerdy knuckle draggers who can only think in terms of binaries. :-)
>And if a majority of people in the U.S. don't use engineering and>science in
their jobs today, it is in large part because the
>educational system has done such an awful job of teaching it over the
>last 50 years (therefore, the industries that support such jobs have
>fled for greener pastures; this is an enormous social problem.)
>
Science and technology are important; there's no two ways about that. As
usual, I find myself on the side of INCLUSION rather than EXCLUSION. That
should tell you something.
>I have a real problem with an educational system for writing and>reading that
teaches:
>
>(1) Culture to the exclusion of global politics
>
Agreed.
(2) Creative writing / literature review to the exclusion of objective>writing
Agreed.
>(3) Art to the exclusion of design
Agreed.
>(4) Literature to the exclusion of non-fiction
Agreed.
>The world of liberal arts is broad enough that curricula could be more
>precise tailored to the interests of the groups of children served.
Well, children of a young age, don't express that much in the way of different
interests; they all like books that help them express their world. As
children grow, they then may show a preference for different kinds of things.
I like your ideas about including "design" in art, but I suspect that teachers
feel they are already doing that at the cognitive level they teach. I also
suspect that you don't like the liberal arts education and would rather see it
abolished than in having more things included.
>
>As for the separate issue of science and engineering, consider the>fact that
your average liberal-arts trained environmentalist:
>
>(1) Does not, even in the broadest sense, know the relationship between a
"Watt" a "Joule" and a "BTU"
>(2) Believes that, because an incandescent lamp is an older technology
>that produces a nice "yellow" light that looks "natural", it must be
>better than the compact florescent one.
>(4) May relate to you some "good news about global warming - the ozone
>hole is reported to be shrinking."
>
???? I don't consider myself an enviornmentalist, but I do try to conserve and
recycle. I don't know much about those issues, which is why you don't often
see me addresse them. However, I doubt that you actually know what kinds of
education these folks have, so I don't put much credence in your
characterization of them either.
>There are substantive things that people need to know about the world>to make
responsible decisions.
>
I agree, but tuning into Rush Limbaugh or playing games about phonics, may not
be the best approach either.>> Mathematics is, IMO, one of the most pure
sciences, and is certainly >> important. Science is necessary. No one is
putting those down, I> assure you. However, the value of a well-rounded
education is about much more than ones chosen profession.
>> It's about the value you attribute to your own life, and how much>> you want
to invest in that.
>
>Minimally well-rounded, perhaps. But one does not have to read Dickens>to be
minimally well-rounded.
Yes they do. :-) Ok, I love Dickens, so I'm prejudiced there. As to being
"minimumly" anything, that's not how I view MY CHILD'S education. What the
school did not provide, in the way of reading, writing and national current
events, I supplemented. It was a good choice.
Not any more than a liberal arts
>professor needs to know about superconductivity to be considered the
>same. For the purposes of a high school education, it's enough to know>how to
read quickly, comprehend accurately, and write coherently.
>
Writing at different levels is just as crucial to an engineer as it is to other
skilled professionals. A high school education is designed to provide a studen
with a well rounded education. College is another matter. AND, part of the
first two years of college level English, is, IMO, designed to help students
write as needed in the various levels of the workplace, from creating better
resumes and business letters, to writing essays and term papers necessary for
other competitions in education, should that studen decide to progress. After
fulfilling the mandatory classes, a student is free to fine tune her eduation
by selecting only classes that work for her.
>> As a former educator, I feel that reading and writing is crucial>> at many
different stages of educaitional development.
>
>Reading and writing are certainly crucial.
>
>But forcing a child to read Dickens and write poetry are *not*>essential to
teaching children how to read and write.
Providing a variety of writing exercises expose students to a variety of
writing. If a student is never exposed to poetry, a great poet may never be
able to express himself.
There are many>things that can substituted for Dickens and many things that can
substituted for poetry.
>
There is no need to EXCLUDE (which is really your unstated goal) any form of
literature simply because you, yourself are insecure with that. I'm not saying
that Dickens MUST BE included, but rather his style of work should be included
to give students a sampling of what is out there.
>> A person who writes a paragraph in the third grade is certainly>> not at
the same level as a person who writes a dissertation> later on. You cannot get
from third grade writing to doctorate
>> writing without steps in between.
>
>Dickens is not a *necessary* step between a child and any>dissertation, unless
the dissertation would be on the topic of>Dickens.
>
Wrong. Dickens or someone else using that style of writing, provides a
literary historical progression of history for students and enables them to
emerse themselves in a time gone by. You simply want to deny students an
opportunity to expand their horizons by making little cookie-cutter engineering
robots out of all our kids. Shame on you. The love of books will see you
thru, even when your dot.com bubbles burst.
>> Last time I checked, writing a business letter was a literary endeavor.
It>> takes reading and writing, that is not at a third grade level. In
fact,>when> I first wrote a business letter, I used A BOOK of letters from
which to>choose.> My business class used a TEXT BOOK. :-)
>
>The article is not advocating the abandonment of textbooks. (Boys
>already do fairly well in the math and sciences where textbooks are
>required reading.) The article is talking about literature read in
>English courses and elective or recreational reading that kids do at
>home or at their own leisure. So any comparison to the reading of your
>average Math or business textbook is clearly misplaced.
The name of this thread is that "...they just don't read books". A text book,
regardless of what else it is, is still a BOOK.
>
>Parents want their boys to read more at home, but the message we offer>them is
to withdraw 5 50 year-old novels from the local library and>say "read", rather
than purchasing a subscription to Scientific
>American, PC magazine, BusinessWeek, Wired, MSDN Magazine or Psychology Today.
Sure, many kids love reading Dickens. But most do
>not, and would rather read something else. The irony of this is that,
>when many of these parents were kids, they were probably reading comic
>books instead of these very same books.
>
Again, you speak of EXCLUSION. You want to remove books from the library in an
effort to stock nerdy magazines for simple minded people? There's no reason
we can't have both, dear. :-)
>i.e. Boys do "read books about animals, sports and fantasy, and will>pick up
magazines and newspapers to read hockey scores, entertainment
>stories or news about things relevant to their lives, such as the
>death of Napster." Now, I personally wouldn't want my kids reading
>exclusively comic books and articles about Napster. But there are a
>lot of materials out there that are not exactly fluff, have good
>educational value outside of the realm of literature. *And* (in
>contrast to Dickens), if you pick the right material, kids will be
>more apt to read if it happens to be sitting next to their bed and
>there is an article on the cover that catches their eye and draws them
>to it. And if you give him a subscription to a magazine containing an
>article about Napster, sometimes, they turn to the next page in the
>magazine and stumble across something else interesting.
>
I have no objection at all to having YOUR KIDS rid themselves of Dickens and
Shakespeare and have them read nothing but popular magazines. I assure you
that my kids will not be doing that. I have a child that does take a copy of
the Wall St. Journal, but he is also in his first year of business school, and
reading lots of books. As a child, he loved the Lord of the Rings, and today
he's in business school.
What's not to like?
>
Aleph Null
>
> I would argue that reading for the sake of reading
> or for improving oneself is part of the magic of
> living, and necessary to being a completely
> integrated human being.
My point is, people who read for the sake of reading do so because
they read about things that interest or entertain them. That's why
books in school should be chosen for:
(a) Educational value
(b) Their intrinsic interest and entertainment
Reading is only enjoyable so far as children are reading what they
enjoy. If you're a kid who *happens* to enjoy reading classics, then
good. I'm sure a kid like that will do quite well with the status quo,
but the majority will not.
>> The Catch-22 in this entire debate, is that the
>> educational system itself is responsible for
>> *setting* the social climate that results in the
>> conversation being spoken at the cocktail party,
>> which presumably creates the demand for the
>> education.
>
> So you seem to prefer having a party of computer
> nerds talking nothing except engineering? I
> don't think that's likely.
I'm not a computer nerd. And I don't care *what* people talk about at
parties.
> Nonsense! Kids should choose their own extra-curricular
> reading material from selections of varied books,
> INCLUDING the some of the classics.
Interesting. You use the word "choose." What if the kid chooses not to
read the classics?
>> Few people use Shakespeare.
>
> Everyone alludes to Shakespeare in numerous ways,
> and to not have any acquaintance at all with his
> work shows a lack of education.
"Shows a lack of education." Interesting choice of words. This proves
what I've been saying all along. This is really just a fashion craze
dependent on keeping up appearances; not functional knowledge.
The functional knowledge you get out of reading literature is learning
how to read, increasing vocabulary, and learning how to write. Those
are the aspects we should be most concerned about when it comes to
English education.
> I'm ok with YOUR kids not getting exposure to
> liberal arts! :-) You can let them be nerdy
> knuckle draggers who can only think in terms
> of binaries. :-)
I'm not a computer scientist. And my kids (if I ever choose to have
any) will get exposure to the liberal arts in good doses. BUT that
portion of their education will be strongly tailored towards their
personal interests.
>> The world of liberal arts is broad enough that
>> curricula could be more precise tailored to the
>> interests of the groups of children served.
>
> I like your ideas about including "design" in art,
> but I suspect that teachers feel they are already
> doing that at the cognitive level they teach.
They're not. If you take a pottery class with 17 year-olds in the
average American high school, all they'll teach you about it how make
a work of art.
Conversely; reading materials (optional or otherwise) on
manufacturing, product design (e.g. ergonomics), materials science or
other practical avenues into pottery will not be presented or offered.
There are kids in public schools who have such interests. They aren't
allow the option to flourish. We shouldn't let them pass us by.
> I also suspect that you don't like the liberal
> arts education and would rather see it abolished
> than in having more things included.
No, not at all. I think it needs to be broadened rather than banished.
>> .. consider the fact that your average liberal-
>> arts trained environmentalist:
>>
>> (1) Does not, even in the broadest sense, know
>> the relationship between a "Watt" a "Joule" and
>> a "BTU"
>> (2) Believes that, because an incandescent lamp
>> is an older technology that produces a nice
>> "yellow" light that looks "natural", it must be
>> better than the compact florescent one.
>> (3) May relate to you some "good news about
>> global warming - the ozone hole is reported to
>> be shrinking."
>
> ???? I don't consider myself an environmentalist,
> but I do try to conserve and recycle. I don't
> know much about those issues...
>
>> Minimally well-rounded, perhaps. But one does
>> not have to read Dickens to be minimally well-
>> rounded.
>
> Yes they do. :-) Ok, I love Dickens, so I'm
> prejudiced there. As to being "minimumly" anything,
> that's not how I view MY CHILD'S education.
Here's, my point. Because you (Hyderdahl) couldn't come out and say
very easily what was wrong with the above three numbered statements
that I provided, you (Hyderdahl) should consider *yourself* minimally
well-rounded. To me, it's just unusual that you don't see it that way.
I'm not saying it's bad. I myself am not particularly well-rounded
with a focus primarily on math & sciences. There is nothing wrong with
that, either.
>> The article is not advocating the abandonment of
>> textbooks. (Boys already do fairly well in the
>> math and sciences where textbooks are required
>> reading.) The article is talking about literature
>> read in English courses and elective or
>> recreational reading that kids do at home or at
>> their own leisure. So any comparison to the
>> reading of your average Math or business textbook
>> is clearly misplaced.
>
> The name of this thread is that "...they just don't
> read books". A text book, regardless of what else
> it is, is still a BOOK.
Read the leading post to this thread. It's an article about reading
materials outside of the classroom. It doesn't sound like anyone is
suggesting replacing chemistry textbooks with comic strips to me.
>> Parents want their boys to read more at home, but the message
>> we offer them is to withdraw 5 50 year-old novels from the
>> local library and say "read", rather than purchasing a subscription
>> to Scientific American, PC magazine, BusinessWeek, Wired, MSDN
>> Magazine or Psychology Today. Sure, many kids love reading
>> Dickens. But most do not, and would rather read something else.
>>
> Again, you speak of EXCLUSION. You want to remove books
> from the library…
No. I'm saying, if your kid isn't interested in 50 year-old novels,
don't withdraw those books. Find some other advanced reading materials
that do interest those kids. Bu the fact is, most parents don't even
know what Scientific American is, or how accessible it is to teenage
students (very). And if their teachers at school aren't informing them
of good options, then they will never know.
> in an effort to stock nerdy magazines for simple minded people?
> There's no reason we can't have both, dear. :-)
Sure.
Hyerdahl1
>From: AlephN...@yahoo.com (Aleph Null)
>Message-id: <7a3d5c77.03083...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20030830143550...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
>>
>> I would argue that reading for the sake of reading or for improving oneself
is part of the magic of living, and necessary to being a completely integrated
human being.
>
>My point is, people who read for the sake of reading do so because they read
about things that interest or entertain them.
That sounds fair.
That's why>books in school should be chosen for:
>
>(a) Educational value
>(b) Their intrinsic interest and entertainment
>
That also sounds fair. Of course, reading the classics does have "educational
value" and can be entertaining. Many film producers have made quite a nice
living out of producing and reproducing from the novels of Dickens and
Shakespeare.
>Reading is only enjoyable so far as children are reading what they
>enjoy. If you're a kid who *happens* to enjoy reading classics, then
>good. I'm sure a kid like that will do quite well with the status quo,>but the
majority will not.
The majority of kids love reading, especially if they're read TO while in their
formative years.
>>>> The Catch-22 in this entire debate, is that the>> educational system
itself is responsible for> *setting* the social climate that results in the>
conversation being spoken at the cocktail party, which presumably creates the
demand for the
>>> education.
>>
Well, I don't see the truely educated person not knowing about his culture, and
that includes the classics. In fact, some people love the ideals of what is
called "pure education" so much that they become lifetime students. While I'm
not necessarily in favor of that (since I think working for a living has
value), I see this kind of education as a benefit to society.
>> So you seem to prefer having a party of computer>> nerds talking nothing
except engineering? I> don't think that's likely.
>
>I'm not a computer nerd. And I don't care *what* people talk about at>parties.
>
Ah, but your boss might. Altho I doubt if mail room staff get invited to those
kinds of parties, so perhaps you're still ok there.
>> Nonsense! Kids should choose their own extra-curricular>> reading material
from selections of varied books,
>> INCLUDING the some of the classics.
>
>Interesting. You use the word "choose." What if the kid chooses not to>read
the classics?
If you give a choice, one from several groupings, if one of the groups is
classic, they will still have a choice of which of the classics they CHOOSE to
read. I even had a summer list in my school. We had to read, i.e. a classic,
a biography, and usually some teen tripe thrown in for good measure.
>
>>> Few people use Shakespeare.
>>
>> Everyone alludes to Shakespeare in numerous ways,>> and to not have any
acquaintance at all with his> work shows a lack of education.
>
>"Shows a lack of education." Interesting choice of words. This proves>what
I've been saying all along. This is really just a fashion craze dependent on
keeping up appearances; not functional knowledge.
>
If you want to deny your heritage and culture, be my guest; people judge you
by the words you use and if the joke or comment goes over you head because you
are culturally illiterate, those around you will make their own conclusions
about the kind of person you are. I prefer to know my culture, and those who
came before by the words they wrote, the language they used, the songs they
sung, and the art they created. Life existed long before binary number
benders. :-)
>The functional knowledge you get out of reading literature is learning>how to
read, increasing vocabulary, and learning how to write.
Those things are certainly crucial to the acquisition of higher education, but
they will not help you think your way out of a tight spot. I have a friend
who was a POW in Korea. While detained there, he
recited most of the poetry he knew; he had a teacher who made him learn these
insipid poems; he didn't like this teacher and found the recitation useless.
While he was there he also sang every song from every broadway show he went to.
Some of his fellow prisoners felt that he helped keep them alive. They could
hear him singing, even the most dismal weather and when food was in short
supply. The point I'm trying to make is that life is more than binary numbers
and computing. Sure, you can get the minimum education but then all you have
is built for your job. When you educate yourself fully and completely, you are
truely blessed and realize that everything you have of value is either between
your ears, and your family.
Those>are the aspects we should be most concerned about when it comes to
>English education.
>
I don't agree.
I'm ok with YOUR kids not getting exposure to>> liberal arts! :-) You can
let them be nerdy> knuckle draggers who can only think in terms of binaries.
:-)
>
>I'm not a computer scientist. And my kids (if I ever choose to have>any) will
get exposure to the liberal arts in good doses.
Well, there you go!
BUT that>portion of their education will be strongly tailored towards their
>personal interests.
>
I have no objection to that. Of course, a liberal arts education does not mean
you leave out the classics or math or science.
>>> The world of liberal arts is broad enough that curricula could be more
precise tailored to the> interests of the groups of children served.
>>
There are no "group interests"; there are individual interests. You don't
have one group of people with red hair who all want to read the same thing.
>> I like your ideas about including "design" in art,>> but I suspect that
teachers feel they are already> doing that at the cognitive level they teach.
>
>They're not. If you take a pottery class with 17 year-olds in the>average
American high school, all they'll teach you about it how make>a work of art.
>
Not if they are in a class where you have an interest in making tiles. My
friend teaches art in a target school and she has the kids make their own tiles
to be used in decorating. The kids choose their own projects and pay for their
own materials.
The kid who did the tiles ended up spending more hours at school and it cost
quite a bit more for her materials.
>Conversely; reading materials (optional or otherwise) on manufacturing,
product design (e.g. ergonomics), materials science or other practical avenues
into pottery will not be presented or offered.
>
Well, I suspect the schools all have limited funding; if you want that kind of
approach it needs to be funded. Why not get some
local business leaders to give workshops in art class?
>There are kids in public schools who have such interests. They aren't>allow
the option to flourish. We shouldn't let them pass us by.
>
Actually, parents expect children to "pass us by" We hope and pray that they
do, which is why education should be our top priority.
>> I also suspect that you don't like the liberal>> arts education and would
rather see it abolished> than in having more things included.
>
>No, not at all. I think it needs to be broadened rather than banished.
>
I'm ok with broadening.
Well, I don't know what you mean. I'm not an enviornmentalist, but I don't see
how that makes me less than well rounded.
I've enjoyed math and science classes, but those were not where my bread was
buttered. However, some of the things I do on a daily basis requires an
understanding of bookeeping and business math, which I have. And even cooking
takes a degree of understanding of science, if one is to do it well.
>>> The article is not advocating the abandonment of>>> textbooks. (Boys
already do fairly well in the>> math and sciences where textbooks are required
>>> reading.) The article is talking about literature> read in English courses
and elective or> recreational reading that kids do at home or at>> their own
leisure. So any comparison to the> reading of your average Math or business
textbook
>>> is clearly misplaced.
>>
>> The name of this thread is that "...they just don't>> read books". A text
book, regardless of what else> it is, is still a BOOK.
>
>Read the leading post to this thread. It's an article about reading>materials
outside of the classroom. It doesn't sound like anyone is>suggesting replacing
chemistry textbooks with comic strips to me.
>
So are you advocating a greater educational thrust in chemistry? I think that
would be a great idea to include more of the sciences is school. Of course,
kids won't go very far without advanced English; these books use ten dollar
words. :-(
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1352075657d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
&oe=UTF-8&selm=b14sbb%24valjm%241%40ID-59530.news.dfncis.de
>
>>> Parents want their boys to read more at home, but the message we offer them
is to withdraw 5 50 year-old novels from the
> local library and say "read", rather than purchasing a subscription>> to
Scientific American, PC magazine, BusinessWeek, Wired, MSDN Magazine or
Psychology Today. Sure, many kids love reading
>>> Dickens. But most do not, and would rather read something else.
>>>
>> Again, you speak of EXCLUSION. You want to remove books
>> from the library…
>
>No. I'm saying, if your kid isn't interested in 50 year-old novels, don't
withdraw those books.
I'm ok with your kid not reading those books. :-)
Find some other advanced reading materials>that do interest those kids. Bu the
fact is, most parents don't even
>know what Scientific American is, or how accessible it is to teenage students
(very). And if their teachers at school aren't informing them of good options,
then they will never know.
As a high school Jr. our teachers did indeed teach us how to have access to
journals as well as other scientific abstracts, and this was before computers!
It was horrendous, not at all like it is today. AND once a student is in
college, they have even greater opportunities to read the latest offerings.
So, I guess I don't know what you're talking about. It seems to me that you
are proposing colleges engage kids in reading what's popular and easy to read
in place of what will actually give them the building blocks required to tell
the difference between pseudo science and the real mccoy.
>
>> in an effort to stock nerdy magazines for simple minded people?>> There's no
reason we can't have both, dear. :-)
>
>Sure.
>
>Indeed. And, kids need those building blocks so they can, at age 40, pick up
one of those popular magazines and explain to their kids why abortion really
doesn't cause breast cancer. :-)
>
Aleph Null
>
> If you want to deny your heritage and culture, be my guest;
> people judge you by the words you use and if the joke or
> comment goes over you head because you are culturally
> illiterate, those around you will make their own conclusions
> about the kind of person you are.
Oh dear. Why would I care?
> I prefer to know my culture, ...
Know any Eminem lyrics? ...
> When you educate yourself fully and completely, you are
> truely blessed and realize that everything you have of
> value is either between your ears, and your family.
I'm already happy.
>> If you take a pottery class with 17 year-olds in the
>> average American high school, all they'll teach you
>> about it how make a work of art.
>
> Not if they are in a class where you have an interest
> in making tiles. My friend teaches art in a target
> school and she has the kids make their own tiles
> to be used in decorating.
Decorating. Wonderful. Some tiles (probably pre-fab or hand made) and
a can of paint. Sounds great. Really.
>> Conversely; reading materials (optional or otherwise)
>> on manufacturing, product design (e.g. ergonomics),
>> materials science or other practical avenues
>> into pottery will not be presented or offered.
>
> Well, I suspect the schools all have limited funding;
> if you want that kind of approach it needs to be funded.
If money were that much of an issue, all you would need my dear is a
sheet of paper with list links to a few useful web sites.
And the money is there to buy a few books in the vast majority of
schools. It's just that the people who spend the money to buy the
books have liberal arts degrees and don't care. The'd rather spend the
money on 90 copies of the Iliad.
That, and most teachers can't be bothered to put in an extra hour of
time for something they aren't personally interested or may find
obtuse.
> Why not get some local business leaders to give
> workshops in art class?
I expect they'll tell you that *you're* the teacher, and point out
that *you're* the one who gets paid for it.
>> Here's, my point. Because you (Hyderdahl) couldn't come out
>> and say very easily what was wrong with the above three
>> numbered statements that I provided, you (Hyderdahl) should
>> consider *yourself* minimally well-rounded. To me, it's
>> just unusual that you don't see it that way. I'm not saying
>> it's bad. I myself am not particularly well-rounded with a
>> focus primarily on math & sciences. There is nothing wrong
>> with that, either.
>
> Well, I don't know what you mean. I'm not an enviornmentalist,
> but I don't see how that makes me less than well rounded.
This has nothing to do with environmentalism per say. These are very
basic questions. If you don't know generally speaking the relationship
between a Watt, Joule and a BTU; it's the equivalent of not knowing
who Chaucer was.
> I've enjoyed math and science classes, but those were not where my bread was
> buttered.
So, you're not particularly well-rounded. Why not just come out and
say it?
I swear. Nobody on this group will laugh at you.
An awareness of one's own limitations is critical to interacting
properly with the outside world.
>> But the fact is, most parents don't even know what Scientific
>> American is, or how accessible it is to teenage students
>> (very). And if their teachers at school aren't informing them
>> of good options, then they will never know.
>
> As a high school Jr. our teachers did indeed teach us how to have access to
> journals as well as other scientific abstracts, and this was before computers!
> It was horrendous, not at all like it is today. AND once a student is in
> college, they have even greater opportunities to read the latest offerings.
> So, I guess I don't know what you're talking about.
Uh.. learning the Dewey decimal system doesn't motivate children to
read; which is the topic of conversation here if I recall correctly.
>> Indeed. And, kids need those building blocks so they can, at
>> age 40, pick up one of those popular magazines and explain
>> to their kids why abortion really doesn't cause breast cancer. :-)
Yeah... okay right.
They let you teach high school kids?
Hyerdahl1
>From: AlephN...@yahoo.com (Aleph Null)
>Message-id: <7a3d5c77.03090...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20030831223334...@mb-m24.aol.com>...
>>
>> If you want to deny your heritage and culture, be my guest; people judge you
by the words you use and if the joke or comment goes over you head because you
are culturally illiterate, those around you will make their own conclusions
about the kind of person you are.
>
>Oh dear. Why would I care?
Well, if you don't mind looking the fool, it might also impact you in the
wallet. That might make you take notice.
>
>> I prefer to know my culture, ...
>
>Know any Eminem lyrics? ...
Sure. I also know some from Alicia's Attic:
"I am, I feel, like
I wanna smash his face in
Yeah! That’d be fun
Coz I sure got a fist for a fight.”
....and some from Shania Twain:
That Don't Impress Me Much
I've known a few guys who thought they were pretty smart
But you've got being right down to an art
You think you're a genius-you drive me up the wall
You're a regular original, a know-it-all
Oh-oo-oh, you think you're special
Oh-oo-oh, you think you're something else
Okay, so you're a rocket scientist
That don't impress me much
So you got the brain but have you got the touch
Don't get me wrong, yeah I think you're alright
But that won't keep me warm in the middle of the night
That don't impress me much
I never knew a guy who carried a mirror in his pocket
And a comb up his sleeve-just in case
And all taht extra hold gel in your hair oughtta lock it
'Cause Heaven forbid it should fall outta place
Oh-oo-oh, you think you're special
Oh-oo-oh, you think you're something else
Okay, so you're Brad Pitt
That don't impress me much
So you got the looks but have you got the touch
Don't get me wrong, yeah I think you're alright
But that won't keep me warm in the middle of the night
That don't impress me much
You're one of those guys who likes to shine his machine
You make me take off my shoes before you let me get in
I can't believe you kiss your car good night
C'mon baby tell me-you must be jokin', right!
Oh-oo-oh, you think you're special
Oh-oo-oh, you think you're something else
Okay, so you've got a car
That don't impress me much
So you got the moves but have you got the touch
Don't get me wrong, yeah I think you're alright
But that won't keep me warm in the middle of the night
That don't impress me much
You think you're cool but have you got the touch
Don't get me wrong, yeah I think you're alright
But that won't keep me warm on the long, cold, lonely night
That don't impress me much
Okay, so what do you think you're Elvis or something...
WhateverThat don't impress me
>> When you educate yourself fully and completely, you are> truely blessed and
realize that everything you have of> value is either between your ears, and
your family.
>
>I'm already happy.
Me too.
>
>>> If you take a pottery class with 17 year-olds in the>> average American
high school, all they'll teach you about it how make a work of art.
>>
>> Not if they are in a class where you have an interest> in making tiles. My
friend teaches art in a target> school and she has the kids make their own
tiles>> to be used in decorating.
>
>Decorating. Wonderful. Some tiles (probably pre-fab or hand made) and
>a can of paint. Sounds great. Really.
Indeed. Another person I know who's not a teacher did a workshop for a high
school art shop where she taught the kids glass slumping, and they also could
make tiles.
>
>>> Conversely; reading materials (optional or otherwise)>>> on manufacturing,
product design (e.g. ergonomics),
>>> materials science or other practical avenues
>>> into pottery will not be presented or offered.
>>
>> Well, I suspect the schools all have limited funding; >> if you want that
kind of approach it needs to be funded.
>
>If money were that much of an issue, all you would need my dear is a>sheet of
paper with list links to a few useful web sites.
Well, money IS required for things like glass slumping; you have to pay for
the glass, which is a bit more than what I pay for my stained glass supplies
and kiln time and have a skilled person who does that. It's not cheap.
>
>And the money is there to buy a few books in the vast majority of>schools.
It's just that the people who spend the money to buy the books have liberal
arts degrees and don't care.
You know, I get really tired of hearing people say that teachers "don't care";
they don't PAY teachers enough to care. If they don't care going in, likely as
not they won't for the pay. Most of the teachers I've met do, in fact, CARE
whether or not they are adequately funded.
The'd rather spend the>money on 90 copies of the Iliad.
That is actually one of the books I never read, but I've certainly read my
share of classics, i.e. The Oddesy. :-)
>>That, and most teachers can't be bothered to put in an extra hour of
>time for something they aren't personally interested or may find>obtuse.
>
Teachers tend to teach around their own skills; if you want to teach something
else, get a person who is skilled in that to do a workshop. It all takes
$$$$
>> Why not get some local business leaders to give>> workshops in art class?
>
>I expect they'll tell you that *you're* the teacher, and point out>that
*you're* the one who gets paid for it.
>
Again, I never had any problem with that; I had a person come down from a
leather tannery and he brought boucoup leather supplies and tools to punch and
mark the leather. The kids made key rings, trivets,
and just learned skills in leather work.
>>> Here's, my point. Because you (Hyderdahl) couldn't come out>>> and say very
easily what was wrong with the above three> numbered statements that I
provided, you (Hyderdahl) should> consider *yourself* minimally well-rounded.
To me, it's>> just unusual that you don't see it that way. I'm not saying> it's
bad. I myself am not particularly well-rounded with a>> focus primarily on math
& sciences. There is nothing wrong> with that, either.
>>
>> Well, I don't know what you mean. I'm not an enviornmentalist,>> but I
don't see how that makes me less than well rounded.
>
>This has nothing to do with environmentalism per say. These are very
>basic questions. If you don't know generally speaking the relationship
>between a Watt, Joule and a BTU; it's the equivalent of not knowing>who
Chaucer was.
The measurements of power, heat and energy might easily be taught by way of
definition, and/or as a matter of science class quite easily. What is so hard
about teaching that? Nothing. In fact, I find science just as compelling as
history or math. But, let's face it; in today's world, if you don't read at a
certainly level, none of those other things can be pursued at any level that
would pay off.
>
>> I've enjoyed math and science classes, but those were not where my bread
>was>> buttered.
>
>So, you're not particularly well-rounded.
I'm certainly not as well-rounded as I'd like to be, actually. Keep in mind,
that when I went to school I was not encouraged in either math or science, but
WAS encouraged in English. It wasn't until much later that I realized I did
have math skills.
And, my children have been more well rounded and I have encouraged math and
science for them.
Why not just come out and>say it?
>
I just did, dear. AND that I was (IMO) denied a more well-rounded education, I
saw to it that my kids did get that.
>I swear. Nobody on this group will laugh at you.
Oh, hon....surely you know by now that I don't give a care whether people on
this NG laugh at me.
>>An awareness of one's own limitations is critical to interacting>properly
with the outside world.
I totally agree with you.
>
>>> But the fact is, most parents don't even know what Scientific American is,
or how accessible it is to teenage students
>>> (very). And if their teachers at school aren't informing them of good
options, then they will never know.
>>
Well, I really love reading the latest in the popular science journals, but I
usually don't read the more esoteric stuff or research the
science stacks or abstracts. I'm lucky tho; I work right accross from the
library.
>> As a high school Jr. our teachers did indeed teach us how to have access
to>> journals as well as other scientific abstracts, and this was before
>computers!> It was horrendous, not at all like it is today. AND once a
student is in
>> college, they have even greater opportunities to read the latest offerings.
>
>> So, I guess I don't know what you're talking about.
>
I'm quite sure you do.
>Uh.. learning the Dewey decimal system doesn't motivate children to>read;
which is the topic of conversation here if I recall correctly.
>
Well, you know the saying, "If you give a man a match he will be warm for a
moment, but if you set him on fire...." IOW, learning to research is one of
the finest gifts you can give a child. When my boys were small, they were
lucky enough to learn to use the computers at two university libraries. One
of them actually made money doing research for others to help put himself thru
college.
>>> Indeed. And, kids need those building blocks so they can, at age 40, pick
up one of those popular magazines and explain
>>> to their kids why abortion really doesn't cause breast cancer. :-)
>
>Yeah... okay right.
>
Well, it is right.
>They let you teach high school kids?
>
I never said that. :-)>
>
>
>
>
Aleph Null
>
> Well, if you don't mind looking the fool, it might also impact you in
> the wallet.
It hasn't so far, and it probably never will...
> ....and some from Shania Twain:
>
> That Don't Impress Me Much
Yeah that's why I went to school. To impress Shania Twain.
Why is it that women have this self-inflated opinion of themselves,
which holds as a fundamental principle that the ultimate put-down for
a man is being impressive or not impressive to some woman?
Get a clue.
>> Decorating. Wonderful. Some tiles (probably pre-fab or hand made)
>> and a can of paint. Sounds great. Really.
>
> Indeed. Another person I know who's not a teacher did a workshop
> for a high school art shop where she taught the kids glass slumping,
> and they also could make tiles.
Well, good for her (or him)! Next time I want to slump glass, I'll be
sure to give one of her students a call.
> Well, money IS required for things like glass slumping; you have to
> pay for the glass, which is a bit more than what I pay for my stained
> glass supplies and kiln time and have a skilled person who does that.
We had a kiln in our (public) high school art room. The teacher
operated it.
> You know, I get really tired of hearing people say that
> teachers "don't care"; they don't PAY teachers enough
> to care.
The average puoblic school teacher salary is $45,000 per year. Not
bad, considering you get 10 - 12 weeks summer vacation, good benefits
and get to go home at 3:00 every day.
> Teachers tend to teach around their own skills; if you
> want to teach something else, get a person who is skilled
> in that to do a workshop. It all takes $$$$
All it takes is for someone to do what any other working person does:
obtain the skills necessary to do one's job.
> But, let's face it; in today's world, if you don't read at a
> certainly level, none of those other things can be pursued
> at any level that would pay off.
Yeah, but one doesn't have to read fiction or "literature" to learn
how to read.
>> So, you're not particularly well-rounded.
>
> I'm certainly not as well-rounded as I'd like to be, actually.
> Keep in mind, that when I went to school I was not
> ncouraged in either math or science, but WAS encouraged
> in English.
Yep. So what's the necessity for the "well rounded" (read: humanities
and not science) education?
> I just did, dear. AND that I was (IMO) denied a more
> well-rounded education, I saw to it that my kids did get
> that
Well gee. It only took me two weeks to get you to admit it.
>>> Indeed. And, kids need those building blocks so they
>>> can, at age 40, pick up one of those popular magazines
>>> and explain to their kids why abortion really doesn't
>>> cause breast cancer. :-)
> >
> >Yeah... okay right.
>
> Well, it is right.
Having your first child at a later age most certainly is associated
with a slightly higher incidence of breast cancer. Presuming that
women who have abortions generally have their first child at a later
age, the assocation would probably be accurate. But then, I haven't
read the studies personally, so I can say for sure.
Hyerdahl1
>From: AlephN...@yahoo.com (Aleph Null)
>Message-id: <7a3d5c77.03090...@posting.google.com>
>
>which holds as a fundamental principle that the ultimate put-down for a man is
being impressive or not impressive to some woman?
Probably because men spend so much time and effort tring to impress women.
(Edit)
>
>>> Decorating. Wonderful. Some tiles (probably pre-fab or hand made)>> and a
can of paint. Sounds great. Really.
>>
>> Indeed. Another person I know who's not a teacher did a workshop> for a
high school art shop where she taught the kids glass slumping,> and they also
could make tiles.
>
>Well, good for her (or him)! Next time I want to slump glass, I'll be>sure to
give one of her students a call.
You seem to be complaining no matter how much teachers provide art as design.
Wasn't THAT the original complaint?
>
>> Well, money IS required for things like glass slumping; you have to>> pay
for the glass, which is a bit more than what I pay for my stained> glass
supplies and kiln time and have a skilled person who does that.
>
>We had a kiln in our (public) high school art room. The teacher>operated it.
>
We also have one in our local high school art room; it was donated.
>> You know, I get really tired of hearing people say that>> teachers "don't
care"; they don't PAY teachers enough> to care and yet they do.
>The average puoblic school teacher salary is $45,000 per year. Not>bad,
considering you get 10 - 12 weeks summer vacation, good benefits >and get to go
home at 3:00 every day.
If it's so very appealing, I wonder why more men don't get into teaching?
>
>> Teachers tend to teach around their own skills; if you>> want to teach
something else, get a person who is skilled> in that to do a workshop. It
all takes $$$$
>
>All it takes is for someone to do what any other working person does:>obtain
the skills necessary to do one's job.
>
Ah, but teachers already HAVE the skills necessary to do the job their HIRED to
do.
Everything else teachers DO of their own free will and volition is extra. Most
teachers provide those extras free of charge.
>> But, let's face it; in today's world, if you don't read at a>> certainly
level, none of those other things can be pursued
>> at any level that would pay off.
>
>Yeah, but one doesn't have to read fiction or "literature" to learn>how to
read.
>
One has to read literature to be well-read, tho, and that is part of getting a
well rounded education. I find it amusing that it intimdates you.
>>> So, you're not particularly well-rounded.
>>
>> I'm certainly not as well-rounded as I'd like to be, actually. >> Keep in
mind, that when I went to school I was not encouraged in either math or
science, but WAS encouraged> in English.
>
>Yep. So what's the necessity for the "well rounded" (read: humanities>and not
science) education?
>
In my opinion, a well rounded person graduates from high school knowing how to
read, write and do some basic math. They have some limited experience with
music, art and the classics, and some idea of what they'd like to pursue in
higher education. BTW, that doesn't necessarily mean college.
>> I just did, dear. AND that I was (IMO) denied a more>> well-rounded
education, I saw to it that my kids did get> that
>
>Well gee. It only took me two weeks to get you to admit it.
>
>>>> Indeed. And, kids need those building blocks so they can, at age 40,
pick up one of those popular magazines
>>>> and explain to their kids why abortion really doesn't>> cause breast
cancer. :-)
>> >
>> >Yeah... okay right.
>>
>> Well, it is right.
>
>Having your first child at a later age most certainly is associated>with a
slightly higher incidence of breast cancer.
Perhaps, just like anything at an older age will be linked with other forms of
disability.
Presuming that>women who have abortions generally have their first child at a
later
>age, the assocation would probably be accurate.
Well, the association between women who have sex with men and some forms of
STDs are also linked; does that mean women should stop having sex with men?
:-)
>
>
>
>
>
Aleph Null
>
>> Presuming that women who have abortions generally have
>> their first child at a later age, the assocation would
>> probably be accurate.
>
> Well, the association between women who have sex with men
> and some forms of STDs are also linked; does that mean
> women should stop having sex with men?
> :-)
Yes.
Hyerdahl1
>From: AlephN...@yahoo.com (Aleph Null)
>Message-id: <7a3d5c77.03090...@posting.google.com>
>
Hehehehehe!
>
>
>
>