Debate Now The Dumbing Down of America

[Foxfyre]

Red:
It can be done. It has been done by individuals who've made studying slavery (or any other complex topic), its history and effects the focus of their academic pursuit. The issue is when is the right time for one to do so.

For most folks there is never any time to specifically need to understand the full scope of a given topic, be it slavery, women's rights, quantum or Newtonian physics, geometry, linguistics, etc. Instead it is only necessary to expand one's understanding when one is required or called to make key decisions -- affecting oneself or others, particularly large quantities of others -- based on one or more aspects of the topic at hand. In order to accurately judge the nature and extend of "greater investigation" one must perform, one must at least be aware that there is more substance and context than what is presented in the texts one encountered at a high school or baccalaureate level of study.

My remarks above allude in part to the binary impression that many folks get regarding the content presented in K-12 and college freshman and sophomore level courses. I believe that many people feel as though what they learned then is substantively all there is to know and/or all one needs to know. To be broadly educated, that content and context probably is all one needs to know. To speak authoritatively on a matter, to have a well informed opinion on a matter, in many instances, the content presented in those classes is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. One's not recognizing that is little but willful ignorance. Our education system and its teachers's not making that clear is little but a disservice to citizens

Deciphering the role and import of willful ignorance and systemic disservice is similar to determining whether the egg preceded the chicken, if you will. The fact is that it really doesn't matter which is the greater ill. What matters is that people recognize that learning should not cease upon graduation and if they allow that happen, it is they, not any school system, who are to blame. (See the quote in my signature.)

Moving forward from there, and assuming one is of a mind to partake in a lifelong journey of intellectual development, it merely becomes a matter of seeking information from the appropriate sources. What is an "appropriate source?" Well, IMO, it's scholarly articles, papers, and books. Unfortunately and in my observation, far too many folks rely on editorials, news programs, politicians, and hearsay as their sources of decision supporting information. I don't reject using those sources; they are convenient for gathering "quick and dirty" information on a topic; however, relying on them exclusively and not ever reading scholarly works on the matter of one's interest constitutes one's doing oneself, at the very least, further disservice, depending on the power one wields, the disservice may extend, deliberately or inadvertently, to others.

I posted: Not a matter of context but simply a matter of including every possible interpretation of the subject matter all at once. It can't be done. You countered that it can be done, and then provided your rationale in a well written post that I'm sorry, I don't think defended your thesis.

For instance, the whole context of the discovery of America and the first non-Indian residents here is far too broad for a single discussion and all the points of view and perspectives about that. If it could be done then the whole thing could be boiled down to a single paragraph that the student could memorize and have ready for the standardized test. That would be like including all points of view and perspectives of the history of the Renaissance or the Reformation into a single paragraph or essay. There are people who have devoted a great deal of their adult lives to researching and finding answers to the intricate relationships and events and responses that occurred.

The best we can do in history class in high school or core college curriculum is to provide the basics that have to be understood in order for the student who is motivated to do so can know what s/he is looking for to get the whole story. And we don't do that when history is presented from a biased or dogmatic point of view: "This is what you must believe. . . . ."

Blue:
??? Perhaps I'm confused.

Are we talking about whether it's possible to cover the all the relevant events, players and aspects of a given topic or the ways that individuals may interpret those things? I was thinking the former is what we are truly discussing. Admittedly that's not what you wrote, but I didn't really believe you intended to refer to the myriad ways individuals of potentially vastly varying degrees of awareness on a given matter might interpret it. I fully agree that folks are capable of divining an infinite quantity of interpretations, some of which can be predicted and some that cannot, as well as many of those possible interpretations being invalid and a few of them having some merit.

If indeed you genuinely meant interpretations of history as opposed to learning/teaching the nature and scope of history's events, players, causes and direct effects, I misinterpreted your intent. Sorry.

What I was trying to say is that history is not just a simple set of one liner facts that kids can memorize for a standardized test. And I fear that is exactly what is happening.

History has to include the culture it lived in, the circumstances that triggered various events, and ultimately the consequences. Otherwise we have people believing things like Lincoln freed the slaves or Columbus discovered America as if that is all that anybody needs to know about that. But it needs to be taught honestly and without prejudice so that fertile minds are not manipulated into believing whatever the teacher wants them to think and believe. A government empowered to indoctrinate is a very dangerous thing.

Green:
I agree that many students do exactly that.

Interestingly and coincidentally, the distinction between learning and memorizing was substantively the topic of a discussion I had with one of my mentorees this past week. I was specifically sharing with him and reinforcing for him the various study habits that I have found effective for enhancing/maximizing information retention in the long and short term. The topic came up because as we discussed his biology class, he was shocked that I was able to rattle off (I was driving a car as we had the discussion) the basic elements and components of the Krebs Cycle even now after not having studied or used it for some 40 years and he's struggling to remember them precisely after just a week.

I have found the only technique that works for me is to use the information in a practical way frequently. I probably memorized a thousand Bible verse in my Sunday School years but subsequently could recall only a handful of those and that would he the ones I most often repeated. But it was useful later in life as I knew pretty well where to go in the Bible to find a specific passage. I was lucky to be grilled and grilled in the multiplication tables and had to recite them enough that they are ingrained and effortlessly recalled today. Repetition is invaluable for memory of things--especially for me. I use a lot of repetition when I teach too for that reason.

In all honesty I had to learn the Krebs Cycle in biology and I think I got it right on the test. But because it was information I never ever needed again, I couldn't even give you any part of it now and I haven't thought about it in decades, but it was fun to know what you were talking about when you brought it up just now.

That is how I look at government, Constitution, and history too. Every nuance and event is not necessary to remember or even know, but I do believe a good grounding in why things are as they are, the good and the bad, is essential for every citizen to know.

 

[WheelieAddict]

In my opinion a thread like this that is created for the purpose of propagating one opinion over another and silencing dissent is the definition of dumbing down America.

 

[Ravi]

Exactly. One shouldn't start a topic regarding the dumbing down of America if one doesn't want it known that basing slavery solely on skin color is vastly more vile than basing it on the spoils of war.

 

[candycorn]

In my opinion a thread like this that is created for the purpose of propagating one opinion over another and silencing dissent is the definition of dumbing down America.

You would be right.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion a thread like this that is created for the purpose of propagating one opinion over another and silencing dissent is the definition of dumbing down America.

Then you probably won't wish to participate in it will you? But thanks for stopping by.

 

[320 Years of History]

In my opinion a thread like this that is created for the purpose of propagating one opinion over another and silencing dissent is the definition of dumbing down America.

Looking at the poll results, I don't see much suggesting there is a notable quantity of dissent to be silenced even if it were presented. Only one person chose option #4 and nobody has yet chosen option #3.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion a thread like this that is created for the purpose of propagating one opinion over another and silencing dissent is the definition of dumbing down America.

Looking at the poll results, I don't see much suggesting there is a notable quantity of dissent to be silenced even if it were presented. Only one person chose option #4 and nobody has yet chosen option #3.

I agree. I have been encouraged by several thoughtful comments on the thesis including the thoughtful disagreements. The two people who voted for #2 in the poll options, assuming that they were the same folks who commented in the thread, were not at all opposed to providing a solid grounding in the subjects of the OP but made a reasoned argument for why that should be a high school requirement while college should focus on the student's major.

I of course disagree with that as I think college not only provides a good foundation for the student's major subject of interest, but should expose the student to a much broader width and depth of basic education as well. In other words I support the concept of core curriculum that all students should study and that should include the topics in the OP. There would also be plenty of opportunity for focus on the student's major and any other electives of interest to the student.

But my disagreement in no way discredits excellent arguments made for the other side.

 

[sparky]

I voted #2 because it seemed to me the OP specifics were really fundamentals , and should be prerequisite to higher ed.

~S~

 

[Foxfyre]

I voted #2 because it seemed to me the OP specifics were really fundamentals , and should be prerequisite to higher ed.

~S~

And I respect that point of view, Sparky, but disagree with it as I explained in my post #267 just above.

 

[sparky]

Hmmm, well you do in fact pose a grand point of view Fox , but what of those who choose paths other than college ?

Let's take the trades for example. A few generations ago they were the penchant of HS dropouts , FF to todays trades(people) and we find the need for intricate math(s) , reading skills for codes and documents in legalese , as well as the need to articulate it all effectively.

Maybe not the best argument , but if you're following and thinking ' he should studied harder in HS, you're spot on'....~S~

 

[Foxfyre]

Hmmm, well you do in fact pose a grand point of view Fox , but what of those who choose paths other than college ?

Let's take the trades for example. A few generations ago they were the penchant of HS dropouts , FF to todays trades(people) and we find the need for intricate math(s) , reading skills for codes and documents in legalese , as well as the need to articulate it all effectively.

Maybe not the best argument , but if you're following and thinking ' he should studied harder in HS, you're spot on'....~S~

That's why the topics should be taught in high school so that those who choose paths other than college--and their number is legion. I do not, as some do, consider such people to be uneducated just because they didn't go to college. I know so many people who read, think, use reason and logic, who never went to college but educated themselves and are imminently better educated than many college graduates that I know. In fact due to the intensely intolerant indoctrination institutions that so many of our universities have become, I was sometimes reluctant to hire a recent college graduate because of the strong possibility of a really skewed attitude about things I needed them to have common sense about.

When you hire somebody with a college degree, you should be able to expect to receive a person who is formally educated, not indoctrinated, with a broad range of perspectives, points of view, ways to address problem solving, and ability to see possibilities in all aspects of the human condition. Those who do not receive basic education--not indoctrination--in the most basic concepts of our history and government cannot be that educated person I want a college graduate to be.

 

[Hossfly]

Hmmm, well you do in fact pose a grand point of view Fox , but what of those who choose paths other than college ?

Let's take the trades for example. A few generations ago they were the penchant of HS dropouts , FF to todays trades(people) and we find the need for intricate math(s) , reading skills for codes and documents in legalese , as well as the need to articulate it all effectively.

Maybe not the best argument , but if you're following and thinking ' he should studied harder in HS, you're spot on'....~S~

That's why the topics should be taught in high school so that those who choose paths other than college--and their number is legion. I do not, as some do, consider such people to be uneducated just because they didn't go to college. I know so many people who read, think, use reason and logic, who never went to college but educated themselves and are imminently better educated than many college graduates that I know. In fact due to the intensely intolerant indoctrination institutions that so many of our universities have become, I was sometimes reluctant to hire a recent college graduate because of the strong possibility of a really skewed attitude about things I needed them to have common sense about.

When you hire somebody with a college degree, you should be able to expect to receive a person who is formally educated, not indoctrinated, with a broad range of perspectives, points of view, ways to address problem solving, and ability to see possibilities in all aspects of the human condition. Those who do not receive basic education--not indoctrination--in the most basic concepts of our history and government cannot be that educated person I want a college graduate to be.

College is great for those who need a college degree to coincide with their jobs. Not everyone needs a college degree to do their jobs. If a person has a high school diploma and later on needs more education, then Community Colleges are great for night courses and further training. America used to have trade schools like the Europeans have now and I never understood why they don't anymore.
Most of my relatives in Germany started as apprentices after the 8th grade. Their companies would work them so many hours a day, then they would go to classes for 2 hours. By the time they finished their apprenticeship, they would have completed their high school requirements in order to get their diploma. Only the relatives who became engineers, chemists or teachers and other high skill professions completed college. That's a system that would work in America.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hmmm, well you do in fact pose a grand point of view Fox , but what of those who choose paths other than college ?

Let's take the trades for example. A few generations ago they were the penchant of HS dropouts , FF to todays trades(people) and we find the need for intricate math(s) , reading skills for codes and documents in legalese , as well as the need to articulate it all effectively.

Maybe not the best argument , but if you're following and thinking ' he should studied harder in HS, you're spot on'....~S~

That's why the topics should be taught in high school so that those who choose paths other than college--and their number is legion. I do not, as some do, consider such people to be uneducated just because they didn't go to college. I know so many people who read, think, use reason and logic, who never went to college but educated themselves and are imminently better educated than many college graduates that I know. In fact due to the intensely intolerant indoctrination institutions that so many of our universities have become, I was sometimes reluctant to hire a recent college graduate because of the strong possibility of a really skewed attitude about things I needed them to have common sense about.

When you hire somebody with a college degree, you should be able to expect to receive a person who is formally educated, not indoctrinated, with a broad range of perspectives, points of view, ways to address problem solving, and ability to see possibilities in all aspects of the human condition. Those who do not receive basic education--not indoctrination--in the most basic concepts of our history and government cannot be that educated person I want a college graduate to be.

College is great for those who need a college degree to coincide with their jobs. Not everyone needs a college degree to do their jobs. If a person has a high school diploma and later on needs more education, then Community Colleges are great for night courses and further training. America used to have trade schools like the Europeans have now and I never understood why they don't anymore.
Most of my relatives in Germany started as apprentices after the 8th grade. Their companies would work them so many hours a day, then they would go to classes for 2 hours. By the time they finished their apprenticeship, they would have completed their high school requirements in order to get their diploma. Only the relatives who became engineers, chemists or teachers and other high skill professions completed college. That's a system that would work in America.

I so agree. For instance, both of my kids went into fields in which a degree was essential so not going to college was never an option for them and they both did achieve their degrees--one needed a PhD and got it. The other just needed specialized advanced courses every once and awhile and got those. Both have excelled in their careers.

Both my sister and her husband had advanced degrees but only one of their five kids finished college which was mandatory for his field (accounting.) Three others have some college but went into fields that a degree wasn't mandatory and all have done fairly well. The fifth kid didn't want to go to college. He acquired a good work ethic and references with HS jobs though and upon HS graduation hired out as a full time laborer on the lowest rung with a construction company. He soaked up everything he could learn, honed marketable skills, moved up in the company, and eventually decided he had the knowledge he needed to start his own business. I should add that he is a quick study plus he read and studied everything he could get his hands on.

His company thrived and grew into a substantial business and he was able to branch out into other enterprises--a hardware/feed store here; a tack and boot store there, plus he has purchased several properties for farming and ranching, conducts elk hunting expeditions in season, and learned how to make those businesses thrive. So with a HS education he is now the only multi millionaire in the family while being an all round good example, good citizen, good person.

And very well educated I might add.

 

[sparky]

I could bore you to death with the evolution of apprenticeships Hoss, but i don't really think it's fits the thread , another day maybe...

I'm also not an educator , save for being the 'short straw' winner for a number of entry courses.

Teaching is a d*nm hard job , being before a group of youngsters is like trying to talk to a tornado

But i digress, the thought of what they learn begs the question of how do they learn it best?

I had the thought that one should be taught to formulate towards a conclusion, not given multiple choices after parroting material over and over

what would you say to that?

~S~

 

[Foxfyre]

I could bore you to death with the evolution of apprenticeships Hoss, but i don't really think it's fits the thread , another day maybe...

I'm also not an educator , save for being the 'short straw' winner for a number of entry courses.

Teaching is a d*nm hard job , being before a group of youngsters is like trying to talk to a tornado

But i digress, the thought of what they learn begs the question of how do they learn it best?

I had the thought that one should be taught to formulate towards a conclusion, not given multiple choices after parroting material over and over

what would you say to that?

~S~

Of course you want the students to reach a conclusion in exact subjects with no wiggle room such as math, geography, chemistry, physics, etc. But in more subjective subjects such as Literature, history, economics, government, etc. for which there is no exact answer, I do not want teachers telling the students WHAT to think. I want the teacher to give the students basic knowledge of ALL we know of the past, present, and probable future, and encourage them to use their own reason and logic to draw conclusions from that--in other words teach them HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

Having been a volunteer and paid teacher at times in my past, I agree it is a difficult profession. But oh so rewarding if you have students who really think and want to learn and expand their horizons.

 

[Ravi]

Judging from who our next pres will be I'd say the dumbing down has worked.

 

[Jully Rowe Davis]

Teachers have had so much put on their shoulders. Not only do they have to teach but they have to council and discipline. I think the "dumbing down" has started at home with parents sending their children to school like paid babysitting and not teaching them how to do their studies or how to conduct themselves properly.

STOP BLAMING TRUMP FOR EVERYTHING. The comment about "Who our next pres will be" has no place in this discussion.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Coyote]

Teachers have had so much put on their shoulders. Not only do they have to teach but they have to council and discipline. I think the "dumbing down" has started at home with parents sending their children to school like paid babysitting and not teaching them how to do their studies or how to conduct themselves properly.

STOP BLAMING TRUMP FOR EVERYTHING. The comment about "Who our next pres will be" has no place in this discussion.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You are so so so right about teachers. Society seems to expect them to be baby sitters as well as teachers, and they are so disrespected these days

I think this cartoon says a lot:

 

[Hossfly]

Judging from who our next pres will be I'd say the dumbing down has worked.

Well now!

​

 

[theliq]

Judging from who our next pres will be I'd say the dumbing down has worked.

Well now!

​

Hi Hoss,I see you still have this Thing for Hillary......what is it with you>>>>>>>>and her...........my mate Hoss......Steve