The making of a society

[dblack]

Ahh the culture wars.

When we make culture a function of government, they're inevitable.

 

[NightFox]

What's the difference between "fundamental" economics and "personal" economics? does "fundamental" economics not apply to individual "persons"?

... and what's with the "requirements" , isn't that part of the problem with our education system? we try to shoe horn every student into a tighter and tighter box regardless of whether or not a given curriculum is suitable for the students aptitudes and interests.

Fundamental macroeconomics, such as the way the economy works, supply & demand, market dynamics.

What you got something against MICROeconomics ? Personally I think MICRO has far more practical applications in most peoples daily lives that an understanding of MACRO.

No, I think requirements, standards and expectations are necessary so that we know our children are progressing at a pace that does not leave them behind.

Requirements, standards and expectations are three distinctly different things, you don't need specific subject matter requirements in order to set standards or expectations, for example I wouldn't think it would be beneficial to require a music prodigy to take economics if said music prodigy had not the slightest interest or aptitude for the subject, after all we have the magic of the specialization of labor to take care of said musical prodigies "economic understanding" needs.

A knowledge of macroeconomics informs one's knowledge of microeconomics, and vice versa.

IMHO most people have very little use for macroeconomics in their daily lives since it affects them in ways that they have little or no control over, for example does an understanding of International Trade offer any benefit to the average Joe? What about understanding how unemployment or GDP are calculated? Those are great things to know if you want to be say an Entrepreneur but of little use if your aptitude and interests are more suited to that of an astrophysicist.

It could be argued that we don't necessarily need to teach a music prodigy anything about math or science either.

Yep.... For example why would I force Mozart to take a physics class if he had no interest in it? It would be just a waste of his time & energy.

But we know that a well-rounded education stimulates and exercises different kinds of thought processes, which have valuable everyday applications.
.

Define "well-rounded" and while you're at it define "valuable everyday applications", valuable to whom? what applications?

In case you haven't guessed it , I'm an advocate of an education system that teaches students how to learn rather than telling them what to learn.

Not sure how else to put it. Different kinds of curriculum make us think differently, approach problems differently, exercise different thought processes.

Agreed, which is why I'm questioning why you want to REQUIRE a more specific curriculum for all students, we already have way too much of that going on IMHO, for example just look at current university curriculums with their requirements for students to take certain "diversity" classes in an effort to make them all think the same way! talk about an oxymoron!

If we want to stimulate different "thought processes" start treating students like individuals instead of just cookie cutter "citizens" that all need to slog through a generic set of classes because some gang of ivory tower eggheads thinks that everybody should be taught all the same generic subjects in the same way.

"Children must be taught how to think, not what to think" -- Margaret Mead

 

[Mac1958]

Fundamental macroeconomics, such as the way the economy works, supply & demand, market dynamics.

What you got something against MICROeconomics ? Personally I think MICRO has far more practical applications in most peoples daily lives that an understanding of MACRO.

No, I think requirements, standards and expectations are necessary so that we know our children are progressing at a pace that does not leave them behind.

Requirements, standards and expectations are three distinctly different things, you don't need specific subject matter requirements in order to set standards or expectations, for example I wouldn't think it would be beneficial to require a music prodigy to take economics if said music prodigy had not the slightest interest or aptitude for the subject, after all we have the magic of the specialization of labor to take care of said musical prodigies "economic understanding" needs.

A knowledge of macroeconomics informs one's knowledge of microeconomics, and vice versa.

IMHO most people have very little use for macroeconomics in their daily lives since it affects them in ways that they have little or no control over, for example does an understanding of International Trade offer any benefit to the average Joe? What about understanding how unemployment or GDP are calculated? Those are great things to know if you want to be say an Entrepreneur but of little use if your aptitude and interests are more suited to that of an astrophysicist.

It could be argued that we don't necessarily need to teach a music prodigy anything about math or science either.

Yep.... For example why would I force Mozart to take a physics class if he had no interest in it? It would be just a waste of his time & energy.

But we know that a well-rounded education stimulates and exercises different kinds of thought processes, which have valuable everyday applications.
.

Define "well-rounded" and while you're at it define "valuable everyday applications", valuable to whom? what applications?

In case you haven't guessed it , I'm an advocate of an education system that teaches students how to learn rather than telling them what to learn.

Not sure how else to put it. Different kinds of curriculum make us think differently, approach problems differently, exercise different thought processes.

Agreed, which is why I'm questioning why you want to REQUIRE a more specific curriculum for all students, we already have way too much of that going on IMHO, for example just look at current university curriculums with their requirements for students to take certain "diversity" classes in an effort to make them all think the same way! talk about an oxymoron!

If we want to stimulate different "thought processes" start treating students like individuals instead of just cookie cutter "citizens" that all need to slog through a generic set of classes because some gang of ivory tower eggheads thinks that everybody should be taught all the same generic subjects in the same way.

"Children must be taught how to think, not what to think" -- Margaret Mead

I would love to be able to do that, but all kids are different, have different resources, backgrounds and support systems, have different capacities, and have different habits.

So, through high school, I'd like to be sure that all American children are provided with a wide fundamental intellectual base, with high standards and expectations.

High school also allows them to follow their vocations, interests and passions. Then, when they go to college, they can expand on all of those.

There is no excuse to punish children in a country as rich as this by using a libertarian approach at such a critical time in their lives.
.

 

[dblack]

So, through high school, I'd like to be sure that all American children are provided with a wide fundamental intellectual base, with high standards and expectations.

Whose standards? Whose expectations?

There is no excuse to punish children in a country as rich as this by using a libertarian approach at such a critical time in their lives.

There's also no excuse to use government to force your druthers on other people's kids.

 

[Mac1958]

So, through high school, I'd like to be sure that all American children are provided with a wide fundamental intellectual base, with high standards and expectations.

Whose standards? Whose expectations?

There is no excuse to punish children in a country as rich as this by using a libertarian approach at such a critical time in their lives.

There's also no excuse to use government to force your druthers on other people's kids.

Well, we can just toss 'em out there, let some sink, let some swim, fuck 'em, they're just kids.

No thanks, not me.
.

 

[NightFox]

What you got something against MICROeconomics ? Personally I think MICRO has far more practical applications in most peoples daily lives that an understanding of MACRO.

Requirements, standards and expectations are three distinctly different things, you don't need specific subject matter requirements in order to set standards or expectations, for example I wouldn't think it would be beneficial to require a music prodigy to take economics if said music prodigy had not the slightest interest or aptitude for the subject, after all we have the magic of the specialization of labor to take care of said musical prodigies "economic understanding" needs.

A knowledge of macroeconomics informs one's knowledge of microeconomics, and vice versa.

IMHO most people have very little use for macroeconomics in their daily lives since it affects them in ways that they have little or no control over, for example does an understanding of International Trade offer any benefit to the average Joe? What about understanding how unemployment or GDP are calculated? Those are great things to know if you want to be say an Entrepreneur but of little use if your aptitude and interests are more suited to that of an astrophysicist.

It could be argued that we don't necessarily need to teach a music prodigy anything about math or science either.

Yep.... For example why would I force Mozart to take a physics class if he had no interest in it? It would be just a waste of his time & energy.

But we know that a well-rounded education stimulates and exercises different kinds of thought processes, which have valuable everyday applications.
.

Define "well-rounded" and while you're at it define "valuable everyday applications", valuable to whom? what applications?

In case you haven't guessed it , I'm an advocate of an education system that teaches students how to learn rather than telling them what to learn.

Not sure how else to put it. Different kinds of curriculum make us think differently, approach problems differently, exercise different thought processes.

Agreed, which is why I'm questioning why you want to REQUIRE a more specific curriculum for all students, we already have way too much of that going on IMHO, for example just look at current university curriculums with their requirements for students to take certain "diversity" classes in an effort to make them all think the same way! talk about an oxymoron!

If we want to stimulate different "thought processes" start treating students like individuals instead of just cookie cutter "citizens" that all need to slog through a generic set of classes because some gang of ivory tower eggheads thinks that everybody should be taught all the same generic subjects in the same way.

"Children must be taught how to think, not what to think" -- Margaret Mead

I would love to be able to do that, but all kids are different, have different resources, backgrounds and support systems, have different capacities, and have different habits.

So, through high school, I'd like to be sure that all American children are provided with a wide fundamental intellectual base, with high standards and expectations.

Er..ummm.. that's what we're doing RIGHT NOW and have been for some time now, how's that been working out ? You got all your imposed "standards and expectations" set by a central authority and guess what? RESULTS are getting worse by both relative and actual measures.

There is no excuse to punish children in a country as rich as this by using a libertarian approach at such a critical time in their lives.
.

What "libertarian approach" are you talking about? Treating individual students like individuals instead of generic "citizens" to be "molded" according to a limited predefined set of specifications ? Nothing particularly "libertarian" about that approach.

 

[Mac1958]

A knowledge of macroeconomics informs one's knowledge of microeconomics, and vice versa.

IMHO most people have very little use for macroeconomics in their daily lives since it affects them in ways that they have little or no control over, for example does an understanding of International Trade offer any benefit to the average Joe? What about understanding how unemployment or GDP are calculated? Those are great things to know if you want to be say an Entrepreneur but of little use if your aptitude and interests are more suited to that of an astrophysicist.

It could be argued that we don't necessarily need to teach a music prodigy anything about math or science either.

Yep.... For example why would I force Mozart to take a physics class if he had no interest in it? It would be just a waste of his time & energy.

But we know that a well-rounded education stimulates and exercises different kinds of thought processes, which have valuable everyday applications.
.

Define "well-rounded" and while you're at it define "valuable everyday applications", valuable to whom? what applications?

In case you haven't guessed it , I'm an advocate of an education system that teaches students how to learn rather than telling them what to learn.

Not sure how else to put it. Different kinds of curriculum make us think differently, approach problems differently, exercise different thought processes.

Agreed, which is why I'm questioning why you want to REQUIRE a more specific curriculum for all students, we already have way too much of that going on IMHO, for example just look at current university curriculums with their requirements for students to take certain "diversity" classes in an effort to make them all think the same way! talk about an oxymoron!

If we want to stimulate different "thought processes" start treating students like individuals instead of just cookie cutter "citizens" that all need to slog through a generic set of classes because some gang of ivory tower eggheads thinks that everybody should be taught all the same generic subjects in the same way.

"Children must be taught how to think, not what to think" -- Margaret Mead

I would love to be able to do that, but all kids are different, have different resources, backgrounds and support systems, have different capacities, and have different habits.

So, through high school, I'd like to be sure that all American children are provided with a wide fundamental intellectual base, with high standards and expectations.

Er..ummm.. that's what we're doing RIGHT NOW and have been for some time now, how's that been working out ? You got all your imposed "standards and expectations" set by a central authority and guess what? RESULTS are getting worse by both relative and actual measures.

There is no excuse to punish children in a country as rich as this by using a libertarian approach at such a critical time in their lives.
.

What "libertarian approach" are you talking about? Treating individual students like individuals instead of generic "citizens" to be "molded" according to a limited predefined set of specifications ? Nothing particularly "libertarian" about that approach.

Okay.
.

 

[dblack]

Whose standards? Whose expectations?

There is no excuse to punish children in a country as rich as this by using a libertarian approach at such a critical time in their lives.

There's also no excuse to use government to force your druthers on other people's kids.

Well, we can just toss 'em out there, let some sink, let some swim, fuck 'em, they're just kids.

No thanks, not me.
.

Then don't do that to your kids.

If we're going to socialize services like education (or healthcare or whatever), they can only be maintained if there is broad consensus on the matter. If there's not broad consensus, the service becomes a political football and subject to a lot of useless thrashing. To get broad consensus on something like education we need to focus exclusively on the areas where that agreement exists - ie we need to settle on a pretty low baseline and supplement it as we see necessary.

The problem, in my view, begins when people see government control of these kinds of public services as a way to "shape" society - as a means of promoting their values at the expense of others'.

 

[NightFox]

Okay.

NO it's NOT "Okay"....

This is the point where you're supposed to start calling me nasty names and disparaging my ancestry.... get with the predefined program will ya.