I almost agree with your support of general education requirements. I got a liberal arts education-- studied philosophy, political science, chemistry, math, english, music-- lots of different stuff. My education has been enormously valuable since then.
However, I learned the most from the classes that I took voluntarily. My experience was that when I was forced to take certain classes, I was much less interested in them, so I put less effort into them, and learned much less. This was common in the required classes, which was depressing for the professors. The students disappointed the profs, and they reciprocated by investing less effort in teaching the classes.
So, I disagree with general education requirements. I think a much stronger proposition is letting students take what they want. The sharp ones take a broad array of classes, get prepared for everything, AND they don't have to endure lame classes. The clueless folks focus too early, graduate from college and are limited to a small zone of proficiency for 40 years.
Really, I see a lot of reasons to take a spectrum of classes. When I was an undergrad, I had no idea what the hell was going on. I graduated, and had 40 YEARS of working ahead of me. It would have been ridiculous for me to think "Yeah, I know exactly how to prepare myself for the next 40 years." Since then, I've gone from newspaper editor to math teacher to embedded systems engineer.
Honestly, I would give up my email privacy for almost anything. The email I get is ridiculously boring. One of my friends sends me a funny picture, my mom sends me a note saying the neighbors are moving, or my brother says he went hiking. Pretty dull, and I even know the people.
To me, the more important question is whether I would allow the FBI to read my email AND harass me about it to save Los Angeles.
Sure, I would. Don't really like Los Angeles, but I suppose that's beside the point.
Re:At what point...
on
2.2 GHz Xeon
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Looks like from everyone else's comments that I must be blind.
I have trouble distinguishing between anything above 20 FPS or so. I don't know of any normal video (exception: cameras for slow-motion) that does anything over 30 FPS.
It's unfortunate that we view the debate in terms of what rights we have, or what rights the government has taken from us. Katz says that we have the right not to get blown up. If we have that "right," what is the difference between "rights," and "things we really like"?
It seems to me that we make up a set of desirable situations and call them rights, and I don't see why that is a useful framework for discussion. I would rather structure the discussion around moral principles or responsibilities, than around a list of rights.
I realize that there is a rather large precedent (the Bill of Rights) for viewing the conflict between people and government in terms of rights, so I understand why the discussion shapes up that way, but we fall into an adversarial mode when arrays of rights are passed back and forth.
Slashdot Mirror
I almost agree with your support of general education requirements. I got a liberal arts education-- studied philosophy, political science, chemistry, math, english, music-- lots of different stuff. My education has been enormously valuable since then.
However, I learned the most from the classes that I took voluntarily. My experience was that when I was forced to take certain classes, I was much less interested in them, so I put less effort into them, and learned much less. This was common in the required classes, which was depressing for the professors. The students disappointed the profs, and they reciprocated by investing less effort in teaching the classes.
So, I disagree with general education requirements. I think a much stronger proposition is letting students take what they want. The sharp ones take a broad array of classes, get prepared for everything, AND they don't have to endure lame classes. The clueless folks focus too early, graduate from college and are limited to a small zone of proficiency for 40 years.
Really, I see a lot of reasons to take a spectrum of classes. When I was an undergrad, I had no idea what the hell was going on. I graduated, and had 40 YEARS of working ahead of me. It would have been ridiculous for me to think "Yeah, I know exactly how to prepare myself for the next 40 years." Since then, I've gone from newspaper editor to math teacher to embedded systems engineer.
So grateful for the liberal education . . .
Brandon.
Honestly, I would give up my email privacy for almost anything. The email I get is ridiculously boring. One of my friends sends me a funny picture, my mom sends me a note saying the neighbors are moving, or my brother says he went hiking. Pretty dull, and I even know the people.
To me, the more important question is whether I would allow the FBI to read my email AND harass me about it to save Los Angeles.
Sure, I would. Don't really like Los Angeles, but I suppose that's beside the point.
Looks like from everyone else's comments that I must be blind.
Oh well. At least I can't hear very well either.
I have trouble distinguishing between anything above 20 FPS or so. I don't know of any normal video (exception: cameras for slow-motion) that does anything over 30 FPS.
It's unfortunate that we view the debate in terms of what rights we have, or what rights the government has taken from us. Katz says that we have the right not to get blown up. If we have that "right," what is the difference between "rights," and "things we really like"?
It seems to me that we make up a set of desirable situations and call them rights, and I don't see why that is a useful framework for discussion. I would rather structure the discussion around moral principles or responsibilities, than around a list of rights.
I realize that there is a rather large precedent (the Bill of Rights) for viewing the conflict between people and government in terms of rights, so I understand why the discussion shapes up that way, but we fall into an adversarial mode when arrays of rights are passed back and forth.