What scars? Also, what if the individual is able to look back on it and just not care? If you're merely talking about memories, and not being sad from the memories, then it doesn't even matter.
the larger group's reaction is to try to coerce the victim into shutting up and taking it indefinitely
And I'm the same way (unless the 'abuse' is physical) because I'm someone who just doesn't care about the 'offensive' words or beliefs of others. Though I don't know if the same applies to these "larger groups."
The problem is that something you might consider useless now might be valuable later
Yes. Might. We can ask ourselves all kinds of "what if" questions. I think it's kind of pointless. And I'd say that this typically does not apply to unrelated subjects.
The point of general education is to expose students to areas they may have never seen before and thus have a chance of the student developing new interests.
Let them choose whether they want that for themselves. If they don't choose to do it, and they end up needing it or wanting it, then it is their loss.
I'd say that you're taking the wrong classes, or you're not using your imagination enough for applying the knowledge.
Or, perhaps, the person really doesn't need it and won't use any of them. It depends on the person. That likely also applies to whether or not it will truly make them more "intelligent" or not. Since I'd say that most people don't remember things that they don't use or rarely use (or believe are unrelated to their actual profession), it will probably be a waste of time to those people.
The mythology material from the other class gets used for naming servers and daemons.
Whether or not taking an entire class just to use the material for that (if they even remember it) is worthwhile is up to the individual to decide.
If you are fixating on cutting out only one sort of course from the curriculum then (to be blunt) you probably don't really understand what you're doing.
I was fixating on making courses that likely won't help individuals in their profession optional (but, as other people have explains, you probably shouldn't get a BS if you don't want all those extra courses).
I was really asking where did the idea that education was about “memorizing random information” come from.
It was merely an oversimplified description. I believe that there's more to it than that.
Now, there's nothing at all wrong with training, as opposed to education.
Depending on which definition of "education" you use, the two may be one in the same.
But why try and turn one into the other?
I think that you're correct in a sense, but many of the posts I've replied to here seem to be implying that these classes are absolutely essential in order for you to be good at your job (or for you to be an "intelligent" individual).
If all you know is one narrow field, then you can hardly call yourself educated.
Perhaps that "narrow field" is all someone believes that they will need. Perhaps someone does not want to be "educated" in the manner that you describe (which might be because they believe it will be a waste of their time and distract them from other subjects).
It's just down right embarrassing to claim that you are educated, but can't even write a coherent paper.
Maybe he already can do that.
It seems to me that he's just looking for some options.
I merely said that not everyone shares the same opinion about what is or isn't "good." They might think that taking such classes will not help them because they most likely won't actually apply the knowledge themselves. But, yes. I don't believe that being forced to memorize information which you'll most likely never use (and probably forget) is a good thing.
Seeing something and studying it will often give you the ability to remember that there's something worth pursuing in a certain direction, even if you don't remember exactly what.
If you can't even remember the information, then personally, I'd call it useless.
It's also sad to only concentrate on one thing in life, but that's an opinion that varies by person.
Indeed. I don't agree. To me, these classes should be optional. Anyone who believes that they will "enrich their life" can take them.
Or are you claiming that you have nothing to learn?
Not everyone believes that memorizing random information that they'll most likely forget just to memorize it is a good thing. Perhaps they want to focus on the things that interest them and the things that they will actually use. Requiring these classes leaves people with few options.
Whether something is truly "good" or a "good" use of someone's time is up to the person to decide. Perhaps, for them, it isn't.
History is important becasue it shows the effects of technology and consequences
And I wonder how often the average person actually remembers information that they rarely, if ever, use? How often do you actually need to recall this information (if you even can) in the real world?
I don't understand why it should be required. If you think that it will "enhance your overall mental ability" and believe that it is beneficial, then take the classes. This leaves people with options and leaves the other people who don't need such classes able to more effectively concentrate on their preferred subjects. People without skills probably won't be hired (or, at least, I think something is wrong if they are being hired). Just about anything can "enhance your overall mental ability," but not everyone needs or wants that (and how much these things actually do help you in the real world can probably be debated).
Take the general education topics because the more areas you know about, the more likely it is you will be able to see an area with undeveloped potential, and the more likely you are to then use your programming skills to contribute something new.
I'd say that unrelated information is often useless. And, from my experience, it is also the first thing that you forget (because you rarely, if ever, use it). It also makes it more difficult to concentrate on things that matter to you (perhaps reducing your performance in those areas while you're trying to improve them) and just generally wastes most peoples' times for reasons I've already stated.
No guarantee of course, just a better chance, but isn't some opportunity better than no opportunity?
I'd say that most people don't have photographic memories that allow them to recall random information that they never or rarely use. If you have a great memory, then I guess it might be beneficial (maybe). However, I still believe that it should be an option.
That's true, but if everyone stopped supplying them with money, they would eventually run out. Now, I know the chances of that happening are likely very unlikely, but my point is that he mentioned people having at least some degree of power over the government. The same can be said of corporations to a certain extent.
But at least they're still responsible for their actions to you, the voter, and you have, however small, power to change its course.
"However small"? The same could be said about corporations (to a certain extent). The problem is that voters don't all agree with one another (which just divides that power). Some people who do want change will likely often be vastly outnumbered by those who don't (or don't care). I don't believe that giving up is the answer, though.
But it's also causing a serious brain-drain in the country.
That "brain drain" has always seemed to exist. There will likely always be "intelligent" people. People that only follow the instructions of others, people that don't truly understand their work, and people that are mere factory workers have likely always existed. If people need money, they'll probably try to get a job. This hasn't changed. And I don't see people of the past (and many mistakes that are regarded as terribly idiotic were made in the past by these same people) being that much more intelligent. Hobbies and required skills have changed, however, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. I think that a majority of the population will always be made up of idiots. Of course, that's just me.
Formal education and experience-based education provide vastly different skills.
I agree, but this article is about video games (which are usually a hobby) and some of the comments here are bringing up other hobbies as well. I don't believe that learning about random unrelated hobbies will help you in your profession of choice. Far less so than just experiencing how to do the job and learning about it directly.
Then those employers are either fools or are treating you like slave labor.
No employer told me that. I merely said that experimenting with how things work is possible even without setting arbitrary rules for yourself and playing preexisting games. And I think it's rather pointless if your profession has/will not have anything to do with it.
And it's precisely because they lack other skills.
Actually, I'd say it's because they lack the skills to do the job in the first place. Whether that is because they have no hands-on experience or because they have no knowledge of it, I don't know.
And it all filters up into your brain with the result being better analysis, deduction, and instincts.
So could learning how to do the relevant job in the first place (and then actually doing it). I honestly believe that it's far more important than doing irrelevant hobbies. I don't believe that anyone will be idiots or lack any of those skills merely because they didn't have dozens of random hobbies.
No skills learned
Because, often, hobbies aren't about learning skills (except for how to do the hobbies) but are about having fun.
This is invaluable experience for special effects people, writers, actors, and so on.
It might be. It depends on what they are going for. But, typically, random unrelated hobbies (or experiences) don't help you in your profession.
from what we really need to be doing.
What you want them to be doing, you mean? There is no universal "need."
Slashdot Mirror
No, the scars may heal, but they are still there.
What scars? Also, what if the individual is able to look back on it and just not care? If you're merely talking about memories, and not being sad from the memories, then it doesn't even matter.
the larger group's reaction is to try to coerce the victim into shutting up and taking it indefinitely
And I'm the same way (unless the 'abuse' is physical) because I'm someone who just doesn't care about the 'offensive' words or beliefs of others. Though I don't know if the same applies to these "larger groups."
Abuse scars the psyche permanently.
I'd say that that depends on the person.
But, like I said, that does not justify them tormenting others and spreading the problem.
Whether or not it's a "problem" and whether or not it justifies their actions is up to the individual person to decide.
Such an illness, if uncurable, which autistic psychopathy is, renders that not a person, but an animal.
An animal? Like all humans are? But, then again, someone's opinion that these people are "evil" is likely not fact, anyway.
It makes me an adult.
Well, I guess that would depend on your definition of "adult." And "cowardly," as well. As for "criminal," well, I'd say that that hardly matters.
The problem is that something you might consider useless now might be valuable later
Yes. Might. We can ask ourselves all kinds of "what if" questions. I think it's kind of pointless. And I'd say that this typically does not apply to unrelated subjects.
The point of general education is to expose students to areas they may have never seen before and thus have a chance of the student developing new interests.
Let them choose whether they want that for themselves. If they don't choose to do it, and they end up needing it or wanting it, then it is their loss.
Appeal to hypocrisy is great!
I'd say that you're taking the wrong classes, or you're not using your imagination enough for applying the knowledge.
Or, perhaps, the person really doesn't need it and won't use any of them. It depends on the person. That likely also applies to whether or not it will truly make them more "intelligent" or not. Since I'd say that most people don't remember things that they don't use or rarely use (or believe are unrelated to their actual profession), it will probably be a waste of time to those people.
The mythology material from the other class gets used for naming servers and daemons.
Whether or not taking an entire class just to use the material for that (if they even remember it) is worthwhile is up to the individual to decide.
If you are fixating on cutting out only one sort of course from the curriculum then (to be blunt) you probably don't really understand what you're doing.
I was fixating on making courses that likely won't help individuals in their profession optional (but, as other people have explains, you probably shouldn't get a BS if you don't want all those extra courses).
but that they are helpful for both of those things.
I'd say that that depends on the individual and what their goals are.
A wide education of some sort, formal or otherwise, is almost by definition what you need if you're going to survive a career change
That depends on what someone plans on doing.
I was really asking where did the idea that education was about “memorizing random information” come from.
It was merely an oversimplified description. I believe that there's more to it than that.
Now, there's nothing at all wrong with training, as opposed to education.
Depending on which definition of "education" you use, the two may be one in the same.
But why try and turn one into the other?
I think that you're correct in a sense, but many of the posts I've replied to here seem to be implying that these classes are absolutely essential in order for you to be good at your job (or for you to be an "intelligent" individual).
But it's not up to them to skip the things they don't want to do and still call themselves an engineer with a Bachelor's degree.
That's true, but perhaps they don't need the "general education" to perform well in their professions.
Education is what is left behind after you've forgotten everything you were taught.
That seems to be it. I certainly didn't want any of that. Of course, I think that people that do want it should have the option.
If all you know is one narrow field, then you can hardly call yourself educated.
Perhaps that "narrow field" is all someone believes that they will need. Perhaps someone does not want to be "educated" in the manner that you describe (which might be because they believe it will be a waste of their time and distract them from other subjects).
It's just down right embarrassing to claim that you are educated, but can't even write a coherent paper.
Maybe he already can do that.
It seems to me that he's just looking for some options.
I merely said that not everyone shares the same opinion about what is or isn't "good." They might think that taking such classes will not help them because they most likely won't actually apply the knowledge themselves. But, yes. I don't believe that being forced to memorize information which you'll most likely never use (and probably forget) is a good thing.
Seeing something and studying it will often give you the ability to remember that there's something worth pursuing in a certain direction, even if you don't remember exactly what.
If you can't even remember the information, then personally, I'd call it useless.
It's also sad to only concentrate on one thing in life, but that's an opinion that varies by person.
Indeed. I don't agree. To me, these classes should be optional. Anyone who believes that they will "enrich their life" can take them.
Or are you claiming that you have nothing to learn?
Not everyone believes that memorizing random information that they'll most likely forget just to memorize it is a good thing. Perhaps they want to focus on the things that interest them and the things that they will actually use. Requiring these classes leaves people with few options.
There is a benefit to those non core courses.
Whether something is truly "good" or a "good" use of someone's time is up to the person to decide. Perhaps, for them, it isn't.
History is important becasue it shows the effects of technology and consequences
And I wonder how often the average person actually remembers information that they rarely, if ever, use? How often do you actually need to recall this information (if you even can) in the real world?
I don't understand why it should be required. If you think that it will "enhance your overall mental ability" and believe that it is beneficial, then take the classes. This leaves people with options and leaves the other people who don't need such classes able to more effectively concentrate on their preferred subjects. People without skills probably won't be hired (or, at least, I think something is wrong if they are being hired). Just about anything can "enhance your overall mental ability," but not everyone needs or wants that (and how much these things actually do help you in the real world can probably be debated).
Take the general education topics because the more areas you know about, the more likely it is you will be able to see an area with undeveloped potential, and the more likely you are to then use your programming skills to contribute something new.
I'd say that unrelated information is often useless. And, from my experience, it is also the first thing that you forget (because you rarely, if ever, use it). It also makes it more difficult to concentrate on things that matter to you (perhaps reducing your performance in those areas while you're trying to improve them) and just generally wastes most peoples' times for reasons I've already stated.
No guarantee of course, just a better chance, but isn't some opportunity better than no opportunity?
I'd say that most people don't have photographic memories that allow them to recall random information that they never or rarely use. If you have a great memory, then I guess it might be beneficial (maybe). However, I still believe that it should be an option.
That's true, but if everyone stopped supplying them with money, they would eventually run out. Now, I know the chances of that happening are likely very unlikely, but my point is that he mentioned people having at least some degree of power over the government. The same can be said of corporations to a certain extent.
But at least they're still responsible for their actions to you, the voter, and you have, however small, power to change its course.
"However small"? The same could be said about corporations (to a certain extent). The problem is that voters don't all agree with one another (which just divides that power). Some people who do want change will likely often be vastly outnumbered by those who don't (or don't care). I don't believe that giving up is the answer, though.
But it's also causing a serious brain-drain in the country.
That "brain drain" has always seemed to exist. There will likely always be "intelligent" people. People that only follow the instructions of others, people that don't truly understand their work, and people that are mere factory workers have likely always existed. If people need money, they'll probably try to get a job. This hasn't changed. And I don't see people of the past (and many mistakes that are regarded as terribly idiotic were made in the past by these same people) being that much more intelligent. Hobbies and required skills have changed, however, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. I think that a majority of the population will always be made up of idiots. Of course, that's just me.
The value of something is up to the individual person to decide. If they like it and wish to buy it, then what you think of it is rather irrelevant.
That's what all good citizens think when they hear of any sort of police wrongdoing
If they just instantly assume that you did something "wrong" or illegal, I'd hardly call them "good."
Formal education and experience-based education provide vastly different skills.
I agree, but this article is about video games (which are usually a hobby) and some of the comments here are bringing up other hobbies as well. I don't believe that learning about random unrelated hobbies will help you in your profession of choice. Far less so than just experiencing how to do the job and learning about it directly.
Then those employers are either fools or are treating you like slave labor.
No employer told me that. I merely said that experimenting with how things work is possible even without setting arbitrary rules for yourself and playing preexisting games. And I think it's rather pointless if your profession has/will not have anything to do with it.
And it's precisely because they lack other skills.
Actually, I'd say it's because they lack the skills to do the job in the first place. Whether that is because they have no hands-on experience or because they have no knowledge of it, I don't know.
And it all filters up into your brain with the result being better analysis, deduction, and instincts.
So could learning how to do the relevant job in the first place (and then actually doing it). I honestly believe that it's far more important than doing irrelevant hobbies. I don't believe that anyone will be idiots or lack any of those skills merely because they didn't have dozens of random hobbies.
No skills learned
Because, often, hobbies aren't about learning skills (except for how to do the hobbies) but are about having fun.
This is invaluable experience for special effects people, writers, actors, and so on.
It might be. It depends on what they are going for. But, typically, random unrelated hobbies (or experiences) don't help you in your profession.
from what we really need to be doing.
What you want them to be doing, you mean? There is no universal "need."