Hey, what's up. I just going to go on short rant about something that has plagued my intellectual inquiry throughout secondary-school education and is now resurfacing in college. Throughout high-school (in a private school for the last two years of it) I noticed that kids just didn't seem to give a flying f**k about education. I regularly got in arguments about the true nature and purpose of education. Sure, I lamented over math exams, just like the next guy, but I still valued the classes as a whole. Regularly I'd hear students making those trademark claims such as "why the hell do I need to take Social Studies--I'm gonna be an engineer" or "English class is bull***t". Okay, so it begins. Why, for f**k's sake, would you waste an hour or two of your life EVERY SINGLE DAY on something you think is absolutely worthless. The common response to that is, "to get into a good college". So, I inquire further, hoping to understand why somebody who loathes intellectual discourse so much, or sees no inherent purpose in the academic model, would elect to go to to an "institution of higher learning". They then respond, "to get a good job". So, I delve further and inquire as to what job could possibly be worth bull****ing away(assuming you take two humanities or social science courses each year in your 4 years of high-school) roughly 1,440 hours. Now, drawing from the assumption that the type of student in question also attends college merely to get a good job and takes the minimum dispersion requirements (in a liberal arts college), double that rough estimate. That comes out to 2,880 hours. Now, let's say you double that yet again, assuming you would spend roughly as much time on the homework as on classwork. So, there ya have it. 5,760 hours (I acknowledge by a very rough/generalizing estimate) spent on something you don't give two s***ts about in 8 years.
Now, I want to stress that I am NOT suggesting that students should drop all intellectual activities that they have little to no interest in. I am actually suggesting quite the opposite. To engage in discourse over a variety of subjects, one must be well-rounded. Just because the engineer or doctor is well-versed enough in math and science to secure a comfortable salary and exist in society does not mean that they are able to function well in society. The same thing applied to the intellectual or theologian who holds no interest in the sciences. A efficient society is one in which each individual member is able to engage in a high level of discourse over a vast variety of subjects, and if one finds something which they are ignorant to, they attempt to become familiar with it. That is the way public discourse should work. The person who solely identifies him or herself as the engineer, the doctor, the theologian, the scholar, the athlete, the artist, or the writer cannot see things outside of his or her own perspective. That person shuts themselves into their own realm of specialized knowledge. However, the engineer who is versed in philosophy, or the writer to familiarizes himself with physic is better able to transcend this realm of independence. Why should you put your best foot forward with any intellectual topic? Why, because you are not the only person in this society. You must be able to both impart and receive ideas. We (here in the U.S.) live in a democratic-republic that is supposed to stress political discourse. Is that what you see on Fox? On MSNBC? Even on CNN? On Fox and MSNBC, I tend to see pundits addressing an audience that only wants to see and hear those ideas which reaffirm its preexisting beliefs. On CNN, I just see a plethora of ideological extremes housed in the same room for the pure spectacle of the ensuing conflict, with no coherence or receptiveness. In these cases, there is plenty of speaking, but no listening. Discourse is shaped by the society it is housed in. It is characterized by mutability. What is deemed wrong a year ago, could be right today, because that's what discourse does, it challenges the preconceived notions of you and your peers.
Sorry for a long-winded rant. I was going to go more in-depth, but then I realized I have an exam to study for tomorrow. I attached a little poll just get an idea of where the community here stands. I apologize in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors, since I haven't actually looked back upon what I just wrote.
*I also want to note that I'm an avid skeptic of any sort of standardized testing, and merit based one's ability to simply be a good studier or have a good memory. Those are useful skills, but good studying or remembering is not necessarily good "thinking".
Now, I want to stress that I am NOT suggesting that students should drop all intellectual activities that they have little to no interest in. I am actually suggesting quite the opposite. To engage in discourse over a variety of subjects, one must be well-rounded. Just because the engineer or doctor is well-versed enough in math and science to secure a comfortable salary and exist in society does not mean that they are able to function well in society. The same thing applied to the intellectual or theologian who holds no interest in the sciences. A efficient society is one in which each individual member is able to engage in a high level of discourse over a vast variety of subjects, and if one finds something which they are ignorant to, they attempt to become familiar with it. That is the way public discourse should work. The person who solely identifies him or herself as the engineer, the doctor, the theologian, the scholar, the athlete, the artist, or the writer cannot see things outside of his or her own perspective. That person shuts themselves into their own realm of specialized knowledge. However, the engineer who is versed in philosophy, or the writer to familiarizes himself with physic is better able to transcend this realm of independence. Why should you put your best foot forward with any intellectual topic? Why, because you are not the only person in this society. You must be able to both impart and receive ideas. We (here in the U.S.) live in a democratic-republic that is supposed to stress political discourse. Is that what you see on Fox? On MSNBC? Even on CNN? On Fox and MSNBC, I tend to see pundits addressing an audience that only wants to see and hear those ideas which reaffirm its preexisting beliefs. On CNN, I just see a plethora of ideological extremes housed in the same room for the pure spectacle of the ensuing conflict, with no coherence or receptiveness. In these cases, there is plenty of speaking, but no listening. Discourse is shaped by the society it is housed in. It is characterized by mutability. What is deemed wrong a year ago, could be right today, because that's what discourse does, it challenges the preconceived notions of you and your peers.
Sorry for a long-winded rant. I was going to go more in-depth, but then I realized I have an exam to study for tomorrow. I attached a little poll just get an idea of where the community here stands. I apologize in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors, since I haven't actually looked back upon what I just wrote.
*I also want to note that I'm an avid skeptic of any sort of standardized testing, and merit based one's ability to simply be a good studier or have a good memory. Those are useful skills, but good studying or remembering is not necessarily good "thinking".
