Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As a matter of principle, the government has no place for determining what constitutes a distortion of history.
Yes, Common Core - I couldn’t think of the right phrase. This was for elementary and high schools - what should be taught at each grade so the results could be compared to understand which teaching methods are most effective. What’s being taught can vary enough to make pedagogical comparisons difficult or invalid.
Apparently studying ancient history, anthropology and geology can be, um not so much indoctrinating as de-indoctrinating. Bart Ehrman is a good example.
In all fairness, the NYT billed the 1619 Project as a "reframing of US history". If that includes fictional narratives,it's distortion.
As for your point though....what about historians? Can they point out distortions?
No, so tell me how Princeton Theological Seminary changed since 1981?If you're unaware of how wildly different higher education is today than it was back in Ehrman's day....then it's difficult to understand why this is happening.
Want an academic job? Start preparing your DEI statement.
More universities than ever are now requiring lengthy DEI statements from job applicants. Is that good for academic freedom?reason.com
Political indoctrination isn't just for the students.
Certainly.
No, so tell me how Princeton Theological Seminary changed since 1981?
Is that what you think music or philosophy study entails? You are simply and quite appallingly mistaken.....
How does one become in expert in something that's largely comprised of unanswerable questions or that's subject to opinions, and doesn't confer any skills?
....
You're assuming that education is equivalent to indoctrination. That's not necessarily true.
And anyway, what's wrong with having your values challenged?
If passing the course requires affirmation of ideological positions....Learning and understanding the arguments offered by your ideological opponents informs and prepares you to effectively defend your opinions.
I was a psychology major as an undergrad. Even at 18/19 years old, I was very skeptical of religion.
But in college, I did some elective study in Biblical hermeneutics and world religions. It didn't make me a Christian. But I was better informed in regards to how religion influences human behavior.
Public universities are still not cheap. An undergrad--or his/her family--still pays many $1000s for his tuition and living expenses. Students should be able to study current events no matter what politicians say.
What looks like ideology today, may well be reality in the future. Remember what Victor Hugo said:
“No army can stop an idea whose time has come”
Is that what you think music or philosophy study entails? You are simply and quite appallingly mistaken.
Not so much music...there's attainable skills you can learn in music.
However, with philosophy, what tangible skills or objective information is ascertained? (apart from perhaps the historical aspect about historical philosophers and their theories)
Like I noted before, if there's a field, and 10 modern people considered to be at the top of their field all have wildly different theories and conclusions, that should be a red flag that what they're teaching is very subjective and is likely a case of people constructing and ideology around "what they wish to be true".
It's also one of the few fields where one can outright reject and insult someone who's an expert (based on ideological grounds) and it's considered perfectly acceptable to do so based on tribalism. For instance, I assume many people have no problem questioning the philosophy of a Jordan Peterson type? (despite the fact that he has a resume and credentials that dwarf anything they'll ever get) The same wouldn't be true if we were talking about a cardiac surgeon working at the Cleveland Clinic.
That's not just to pick on the philosophers (although I do it a fair amount simply because it's one of the few majors where the only thing of significance you can do is become a professor of philosophy yourself and repeat the pattern). I forget the comedian who did it, but they did about about what it was like to major in philosophy.
"And once I graduate with this degree what can I do?"
"You can teach it to some other people"
"And then what will they do?"
"...well, then they'll teach it to some other people"
"This isn't an education, this is Amway with a track team!"
In some ways, economics has a little bit of that propensity (where 5 people who've all studied it for decades can come up with 5 very different conclusions) ...though I'd argue that people who get an advanced econ degree at least leave with some additional understanding of some of the more obscure facets of our economic system that your average Joe wouldn't know.
Here’s the thing: in general, people do not like being disabused of their illusions.Philosophy is excellent for learning critical thought and disabusing a person of illusions.
Is it?, or is the modern incarnation of it heavily tied to credentialism as a vehicle for steering people in one direction or the other?Philosophy is excellent for learning critical thought and disabusing a person of illusions.
Is it possible that some of these courses and instructors aren't necessarily always disabusing people of their illusions, but rather are simply replacing one set of illusions with another?Here’s the thing: in general, people do not like being disabused of their illusions.
Not at all with music. There's music theory, reading, proficiency on the instruments, music history, music education, music production, etc.Not so much music...there's attainable skills you can learn in music.
Critical thinking, formal logic, writing skills, world history including history of science. I understand that philosophy grads go on to law and business quite often.However, with philosophy, what tangible skills or objective information is ascertained? (apart from perhaps the historical aspect about historical philosophers and their theories)
I dont believe he's associated with any academic philosophy program - neither as professor or student. But for the sake of argument, lets say he was. I think there's great value in people from a variety of pov's who've honed their capacity to step back and take a broad view of human experience - and then report what they've learned.It's also one of the few fields where one can outright reject and insult someone who's an expert (based on ideological grounds) and it's considered perfectly acceptable to do so based on tribalism. For instance, I assume many people have no problem questioning the philosophy of a Jordan Peterson type? (despite the fact that he has a resume and credentials that dwarf anything they'll ever get) The same wouldn't be true if we were talking about a cardiac surgeon working at the Cleveland Clinic.
Those still equate to a tangible skill. While not all of them will be practical skills, some would be.Not at all with music. There's music theory, reading, proficiency on the instruments, music history, music education, music production, etc.
If done through a specific lens, it can still be considered indoctrination. Over emphasis on certain things combined with selective omission of others can still create a situation where someone is "learning something" while being steered in one particular direction.Critical thinking, formal logic, writing skills, world history including history of science. I understand that philosophy grads go on to law and business quite often.
I think his formal degree (and previous professorships) were in psychology, but he delves quite a bit into the philosophical realm.I dont believe he's associated with any academic philosophy program - neither as professor or student. But for the sake of argument, lets say he was. I think there's great value in people from a variety of pov's who've honed their capacity to step back and take a broad view of human experience - and then report what they've learned.
The audience has shown that they're particularly credulous. What is he going to do - propose policies that generally help the majority of voters or something?This is coming from the guy that went to Yale and Harvard.
What a hypocrite. He tilts at the windmills of elitism, but he's an elite himself.
Philosophy is excellent for learning critical thought and disabusing a person of illusions.
Either one has to have the somewhat arrogant self-serving opinion that "my position is the organic, exclusive end result of learning and critical thinking" (we've all heard the tropes about "well if you educated yourself on the subject and thought it about it more, you'd agree with me")
The College Academia environment has likely changed quite a bit since the time he was going there.This is coming from the guy that went to Yale and Harvard.
What a hypocrite. He tilts at the windmills of elitism, but he's an elite himself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?