Subject:
|
Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:45:03 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera{Spamless}.com
|
Viewed:
|
942 times
|
| |
|
|
Heartlessly snipped, as usual
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> I can see that you're frustrated with this, but I don't understand. I'm
> serious when I don't follow whether you think it's a good thing that
> colleges don't prepare students for the work world. I can see arguments
> for both sides of this issue.
I guess I'm mostly with Chris on this one.
Scott, you raise some valid points about flaws in the current system.
But short of scrapping the whole notion of regulating how colleges admit
people, which is my solution, and which is something which, as a
conventional conservative, you'd presumably be against, I don't see
where you've offered any alternatives to fix things.
Since we're stuck with publicly funded schools for some time to come, I
guess I'd take a two track approach. Advocate abolishing them on one
track, yes, but on the other, try to do whatever fixing we can. Testing
kids in a variety of different ways, with the goal being to predict
whether they will do well in a school, said school having been realigned
to try to focus on what is important to learn to prepare for success in
future life, seems a good idea to me.
And if we trot out a battery of tests that all tell us more (and
different) things about students than the SAT does, that has to be good.
Now, what it means to prepare for success is a different question. The
classical liberal education arguably produces more well rounded citizens
than a 100% practically oriented "vocational" approach. Engineers need
to be able to write complete sentences, and literature majors need to
know a bit about how electricity works, in my opinion.
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| (...) My college education (at the first "engineering" college in the US (world?) - Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) certainly focused on a well rounded education. We were required to effectively take one humanities or social sciences class every (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| Larry & all, This whole set of posting is off from what I am arguing about, which is affirmative action. I think discrimination, on anyone, is wrong, in the context of jobs, education, etc. If we test people, shouldn't everyone take the same tests? (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rush: "Lego is a Tool for 4 year olds"
|
| "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote: > Why is that? Should the tests be designed to determine who has a good (...) Making it so they all go to college together segregates them? (...) Should not? What do you mean should? What if it does? Does matter, whether or (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
89 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
