The cost of college has skyrocketed, student debt has soared, and graduates are not prepared for the job market.
Our current system of higher education is broken, and absolutely needs fixing.
Yes concerning the costs and debt. But teaching has not changed (which is the complaint of the article). So why does teaching need fixing?
Regarding the last point: this of course is the problem, but it is one caused by branding and sales pitches. And this is precisely what needs to change.The point of the university is emphatically not to train employees.
What a crock of shit. College teaching is not broken and does not need fixing. What does need fixing is the insanity of administrators who look at student results and blame the faculty for them.
That was not his point nor mine. He meant that factories could replace tradesmen, and that they'd be better for it. He utterly failed to see that people take pride in making handcrafts, and express their personality in them. In his drive for efficiency, he thought even happiness could be efficient...
At the previous turn of the millennium, Adolf Loos too though that automation would save us from soul-crushing labour and lead to lives of leisure. Boy was he wrong. But he was just an architect, so we can forgive him.
But "why" implies design, not random advantageous mutations.
Or put differently: if we use "why", the only answer can be "evolution." Then everything else becomes "how" (the mechanism) and "what" (the advantage) questions.
Yes, of course. Hybrid corn seeds don't work well with seed saving, which of course is why such seeds are so heavily pushed by Monsanto, etc. Farmers could of course use open-pollinated seeds and save those. But the point is to get farmers to use hybrids as much as possible. GURT would take care of all such issues.
There were plans to use GURTs, but they were shelved due to public controversy.
And the benefit is precisely what you are calling its drawback. Let me make an analogy with cars: how do you think they'd sell cars if they had to create each one brand new?
Forcing farmers to buy new seeds each year was precisely the goal.
Slashdot Mirror
All you need to do is use paper bags, or bring your own, and, presto! - you're ethical!
The cost of college has skyrocketed, student debt has soared, and graduates are not prepared for the job market.
Our current system of higher education is broken, and absolutely needs fixing.
Yes concerning the costs and debt. But teaching has not changed (which is the complaint of the article). So why does teaching need fixing?
Regarding the last point: this of course is the problem, but it is one caused by branding and sales pitches. And this is precisely what needs to change.The point of the university is emphatically not to train employees.
What a crock of shit. College teaching is not broken and does not need fixing. What does need fixing is the insanity of administrators who look at student results and blame the faculty for them.
Why then did the pilots of two planes not do what you said they should know that they should do?
You should stop worrying about big-picture stuff like 'science' and instead concentrate on reading comprehension.
In response to dude who said that theoretical physics is not science, I said science is both the positing and the empirical testing of hypotheses.
Come on now. Science is not limited to the domain of experimental science.
Science broadly construed is the search for hypotheses that unite various phenomena. Experimental science merely attempts to falsify these hypotheses.
If anything, experimental science is the ugly stepsister here ...
Oh I can fully agree with that. I am no Luddite.
That was not his point nor mine. He meant that factories could replace tradesmen, and that they'd be better for it. He utterly failed to see that people take pride in making handcrafts, and express their personality in them. In his drive for efficiency, he thought even happiness could be efficient...
At the previous turn of the millennium, Adolf Loos too though that automation would save us from soul-crushing labour and lead to lives of leisure. Boy was he wrong. But he was just an architect, so we can forgive him.
As the fluffy icy fractal hypothesis is completely naturalistic, it is simpler.
But "why" implies design, not random advantageous mutations.
Or put differently: if we use "why", the only answer can be "evolution." Then everything else becomes "how" (the mechanism) and "what" (the advantage) questions.
Would not the better question be: what selective advantage did stripes provide?
I am so stealing (and modifying) your example for my philosophy of science classes.
It is one thing to say that bees interact with the world mathematically, and another to say that they understand math.
I don't see how science can make the jump from the former to the latter in a way warranted by measurement.
Agreed. Spice mixtures are a con. Make them yourself from the constituent spices ...
No, AC is correct; those work. I set a few other things though as well:
media.autoplay.ask-permission: true
media.autoplay.block-webaudio: true
media.autoplay.enabled.user-gestures-needed: true
... I looked into the soul of the girl beside me. (Woody Allen)
We're one the same page. I was just responding to some astroturfing in the parent comment.
I like how little bitchy Alex Jones conspiracy theorists like you, who are trying to advocate banning GMO...
You're also not completely correct about the USDA. They were created in a public-private collaboration with Delta & Pine.
lol. Show me where I said they should be banned.
Show me where I said they were bad, or that the companies are evil conspirators. For all you know, I agree with the idea.
p.s. show me where I said something counterfactual.
Yes, of course. Hybrid corn seeds don't work well with seed saving, which of course is why such seeds are so heavily pushed by Monsanto, etc. Farmers could of course use open-pollinated seeds and save those. But the point is to get farmers to use hybrids as much as possible. GURT would take care of all such issues.
There were plans to use GURTs, but they were shelved due to public controversy.
And the benefit is precisely what you are calling its drawback. Let me make an analogy with cars: how do you think they'd sell cars if they had to create each one brand new?
Forcing farmers to buy new seeds each year was precisely the goal.
Actually, Socrates's statement is not honest, but ironic.
It's called shame, and it's designed to modify behaviour. Consider it an extreme version of nudge theory.
Think of it as a prize question, then.