It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NPR shows why leftists can be so damned stupid

page: 15
49
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:39 AM
link   
While I am in favor of tough standards, and think all college students can benefit from algebra (and even calculus), if these courses have nothing to do with their degree (like Women's Studies), then I don't think students should be forced to pay for them. Personally, I'm glad I had to take courses that had nothing to do with my Economics degree. I never would have imagined I would need any knowledge from an "Art and Literature of the 3rd Reich" course, but from time to time I run into scenarios where knowing Kafka, or Marlene Dietrich, or "Metropolis", have given me a lot of satisfaction that I was exposed to this knowledge. But if diversity of knowledge isn't your thing, and you want to go to college to simply prepare you for a job, I think you should have that option.




posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No. Actually forcing requirements are the opposite of freedom.

Besides the other two fallacies, this is even more obvious but still here you are arguing.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

No.

I disagree

I'm an engineer with a high science background.

The classes I took in music, art, language did nothing for my career, but benefitted me as a well-rounded person.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
While I am in favor of tough standards, and think all college students can benefit from algebra (and even calculus), if these courses have nothing to do with their degree (like Women's Studies), then I don't think students should be forced to pay for them. Personally, I'm glad I had to take courses that had nothing to do with my Economics degree. I never would have imagined I would need any knowledge from an "Art and Literature of the 3rd Reich" course, but from time to time I run into scenarios where knowing Kafka, or Marlene Dietrich, or "Metropolis", have given me a lot of satisfaction that I was exposed to this knowledge. But if diversity of knowledge isn't your thing, and you want to go to college to simply prepare you for a job, I think you should have that option.

Gasp! Like that movie "Evil Dead" I struggled with my arm as it moved to give you a star. Never thought I'd agree with you.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

And a bunch of other people dropped out of high school and are still finding their way through life.

According to the op the planet should have exploded by now.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy

No. Actually forcing requirements are the opposite of freedom.

Besides the other two fallacies, this is even more obvious but still here you are arguing.



Providing the opportunity to learn more is anti-freedom.

Really.

So more knowledge is anti-freedom.

please, tell me more.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   
The only way to freedom is through knowledge.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No, the opportunity is still there.

That is a strawman.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy

No, the opportunity is still there.

That is a strawman.


Why are you against the opportunity?



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

This is me trying to give you a star. It's rare to agree with someone on the other side.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

But you keep missing the point of these requirements.

These arent for a general sense. As in they were assigned by tradition or something.

They are the foundational knowlege needed in order to build upon for greater skill.

What you argue is for lowering a standard because after years of progressive budget motivated testing, kids arent learning what they used to with less reaources.

We have spent more and more over the years for less and less qualified people than we used to get.

So now they are ready to go to school age wise, but now need a "college degree" for dummies course.

Its not hard to see how that is a process of diminishing returns.


edit on 7 22 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

No.
I disagree
I'm an engineer with a high science background.
The classes I took in music, art, language did nothing for my career, but benefitted me as a well-rounded person.


I agree with you, which was the point of my first post, that I am grateful I had to take these superfluous courses. That being said, not everyone is like you and I, and if they want to go to college simply to study for a job, and not to become a person with a well-rounded knowledge base, I think they should be afforded that option, especially when the cost of college is so high.



originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
While I am in favor of tough standards, and think all college students can benefit from algebra (and even calculus), if these courses have nothing to do with their degree (like Women's Studies), then I don't think students should be forced to pay for them. Personally, I'm glad I had to take courses that had nothing to do with my Economics degree. I never would have imagined I would need any knowledge from an "Art and Literature of the 3rd Reich" course, but from time to time I run into scenarios where knowing Kafka, or Marlene Dietrich, or "Metropolis", have given me a lot of satisfaction that I was exposed to this knowledge. But if diversity of knowledge isn't your thing, and you want to go to college to simply prepare you for a job, I think you should have that option.

Gasp! Like that movie "Evil Dead" I struggled with my arm as it moved to give you a star. Never thought I'd agree with you.


We're all people. I imagine we agree on more things than we disagree on, outside of politics of course.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I never said I was.

The non sequitur is you equating the opportunity to a requirement, that is the flaw in your logic. Sorry you can't seem to grasp that.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

But not everything is required by everyone. It depends on their field.

I don't have a problem with requirements. I'm pointing out how they, or the lack of them, can't be used to accuse someone of being against freedom.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy

I never said I was.

The non sequitur is you equating the opportunity to a requirement, that is the flaw in your logic. Sorry you can't seem to grasp that.


I can't believe what you're saying.

You appear to be against higher learner and are for lowering standards.

C'est la vie.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:58 AM
link   
I don't see in this thread or even in the transcript of the interview that anyone is advocating for lowering standards.


We are piloting different math pathways within our community colleges. We're working with our university partners at CSU and the UC, trying to ensure that we can align these courses to best prepare our students to succeed in majors. And if you think about it, you think about the use of statistics not only for a social science major but for every U.S. citizen. This is a skill that we should have all of our students have with them because this affects them in their daily life.


Requiring someone attending college in hopes of attaining a degree in the social sciences to learn statistics rather than Algebra isn't lowering standards, it's changing them to fit more appropriately with the skill set they'll need in their career. Statistics may be more difficult than Algebra for some.


First of all, we've seen in the data from many of the pilots across the country that are using alternative math pathways — that are just as rigorous as an algebra course — we've seen much greater success for students because many of these students can relate to these different kinds of math depending on which program of study they're in. They can see how it works in their daily life and how it's going to work in their career.....

...We're certainly not saying that we're going to commit students to lower levels of math or different kinds of math. What we're saying is we want more students to have math skills that allow them to keep moving forward. We want to build bridges between the kinds of math pathways we're talking about that will allow them to continue into STEM majors. We don't want to limit students.



Again, the interviewee isn't advocating for lower standards. He's advocating to find a better way for a student to learn math. If someone learns the skill set necessary for their profession the pathway there is irrelevant.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that not requiring something doesn't remove the opportunity.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

You keep saying fascism and freedom have to do with this. That is also absurd.

The counter argument to yours is one of empowerment through more knowledge.

Higher educational standards are directly proportional to specific success in any field.

You are not being honest. A higher learning institution should not accept a less than fully graduated HS student.

GEDs are a good thing. They cover general "life and things" knowledge that people need to succeed in life.

Would you argue against them too if suddenly people started to fail and couldnt be bothered to try harder?

Freedom is being able to do something, not just "having permission to do so"
edit on 7 22 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Like I said, the OP brought it up before me in the thread and there is even an example of it 12 posts above the one I'm replying to.

This isn't about what a higher learning institution will accept. It is about what they require of non tech students. That is what the article in the OP was about. How is that not being honest?



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Non tech students are still students and should be held to the same standard. A higher learning institution should aim to churn out complete well rounded adults, not drones capable of employment alone.

The same way business people should have a basic understanding of art is how non tech students should know how basic circuitry works. Or how government works, or banks, or magical medicines.

They need to work them harder and compensate by cutting costs, so more energy is given to study with less pressure on failure.

It shouldnt feel like playing a heavy hand of poker.

Thats what this comes down to. Money has made it a high stakes game where everytime you base a budget on testing you pressure for passing grades over learning.

They are failing in math. Get them tutors.
Kick ass tutors.


edit on 7 22 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join