Steven Pinker on Harvard's new education standards.

Once in a while, FrontPageMag actually publishes something worth reading. This is one of them.

Good article.

It's no big secret to science and engineering majors, however, that science and math requirements for non-majors are a joke at most universities.

Once in a while, FrontPageMag actually publishes something worth reading. This is one of them.

Nice article. A relevant snippet:

Also, the picture of humanity’s place in nature that has emerged from scientific inquiry has profound consequences for people’s understanding of the human condition. The discoveries of science have cascading effects, many unforeseeable, on how we view ourselves and the world in which we live: for example, that our planet is an undistinguished speck in an inconceivably vast cosmos; that all the hope and ingenuity in the world can’t create energy or use it without loss; that our species has existed for a tiny fraction of the history of the earth; that humans are primates; that the mind is the activity of an organ that runs by physiological processes; that there are methods for ascertaining the truth that can force us to conclusions which violate common sense, sometimes radically so at scales very large and very small; that precious and widely held beliefs, when subjected to empirical tests, are often cruelly falsified.

I believe that a person for whom this understanding is not second-nature cannot be said to be educated.

My bolding.

[quote] It even mandates that courses which fulfill the Science and Technology requirement “frame this material in the context of social issuesâ€

Nice article. A relevant snippet:

Also, the picture of humanity’s place in nature that has emerged from scientific inquiry has profound consequences for people’s understanding of the human condition. The discoveries of science have cascading effects, many unforeseeable, on how we view ourselves and the world in which we live: for example, that our planet is an undistinguished speck in an inconceivably vast cosmos; that all the hope and ingenuity in the world can’t create energy or use it without loss; that our species has existed for a tiny fraction of the history of the earth; that humans are primates; that the mind is the activity of an organ that runs by physiological processes; that there are methods for ascertaining the truth that can force us to conclusions which violate common sense, sometimes radically so at scales very large and very small; that precious and widely held beliefs, when subjected to empirical tests, are often cruelly falsified.

I believe that a person for whom this understanding is not second-nature cannot be said to be educated.

Dang that's too long for a tagline for .sig block...

Another relevant snippet:

Again, we have to keep in mind that the requirement will attract attention from far and wide, and for a long time. For us to magnify the significance of religion as a topic equivalent in scope to all of science, all of culture, or all of world history and current affairs, is to give it far too much prominence. It is an American anachronism, I think, in an era in which the rest of the West is moving beyond it.

Agree. Good article.

I went to 'one of those nerd schools' where they offer a thorough education in a specific (usually technical) subject for which you already have an expressed keen interest (such as "my ambition in life is to become a rocket scientist"). This is what I wanted and got (I did not want to spends years and a fortune learning about subjects that to me have no interest or practical daily significance to a modern person (such as all manner of BS courses devoted to minutia about abscure aspects of history, like "Homosexual Innuendos in the Works of Shakespeare and Blake: A Comparision" - I don't give a fauk). There was no such thing as a traditional 'liberal' education where I went to school, however, the nerds are required to take electives in areas that relate to 'nerd' subjects, like history, psych, politics, and so on. However, that was the theory - exposure to information does mean it sinks in or will have an effect, despite the exams. I had an illuminating discussion with my frustrated prof of an elective history course, in this regard. He told me "I hate teaching here. No one gives a shit about this stuff." (a direct quote).

The problem I had was the offerings in these 'electives' were meager, and were not structured to complement the core technical courses taught elsewhere, such a social and political implications of various technologies. In other words, the tech stuff should be taught as factual material, and not get mixed in with the 'liberal' stuff.

I solved my desire to learn about certain topics that were not offered as electives by simply reading stuff on the subject at my leisure, like about religion and other personal topics.

The problem with this heavy emphasis on technical "training" is that some nerds never get a 'high level' view of the world (i.e. they are totally focused on their 'field'), and hence become socially inept.

I have some friends who went to Harvard and studied the same technical subject as me. I can guarantee that when they got the Bachelor's degree, they new jack about the field, and thus were not prepared to enter the field. However, they were more well-rounded about the world in general, AND ALSO were expected to go on to grad school where they would get the guts of their technical education.

Conversely I would like to see people getting a liberal education be exposed more to basic scientific studies, such as overview of various theories and technologies and courses in logic and reasoning and the scientific method. I am not talking about math, but more about concepts like the origin of the world, and the properties of materials, and economic principles. I am constantly confounded in my professional career by people who simply can not 'think straight', and this is one of the reasons for some of the misuse of science - the ensuing problems created by irrational people who make dumb decisions about technical matters gets blamed on the science itself - like the science 'knows' what it will be used-for. It's the old story of "the messenger brings a message of bad news to the King, and the King shoots the messenger". That will help. Right.

End of diatribe.

[quote="doc30"][quote] It even mandates that courses which fulfill the Science and Technology requirement “frame this material in the context of social issuesâ€

Agree. Good article.

I went to 'one of those nerd schools' where they offer a thorough education in a specific (usually technical) subject for which you already have an expressed keen interest (such as "my ambition in life is to become a rocket scientist"). This is what I wanted and got (I did not want to spends years and a fortune learning about subjects that to me have no interest or practical daily significance to a modern person (such as all manner of BS courses devoted to minutia about abscure aspects of history, like "Homosexual Innuendos in the Works of Shakespeare and Blake: A Comparision" - I don't give a fauk). There was no such thing as a traditional 'liberal' education where I went to school, however, the nerds are required to take electives in areas that relate to 'nerd' subjects, like history, psych, politics, and so on. However, that was the theory - exposure to information does mean it sinks in or will have an effect, despite the exams. I had an illuminating discussion with my frustrated prof of an elective history course, in this regard. He told me "I hate teaching here. No one gives a shit about this stuff." (a direct quote).

[snip]

The problem with this heavy emphasis on technical "training" is that some nerds never get a 'high level' view of the world (i.e. they are totally focused on their 'field'), and hence become socially inept.

That was the rationale for making "Western Civ" a compulsory freshman history course at our alma mater. But here's the problem: nerds who are "socially inept" are usually so not because they lack exposure to the historical context of technology in Western Civilization, but because of deeper, more profound problems that no amount of history courses in college will ever fix. Example: it's one thing to point out that there is an error in the 10th decimal place in National Lampoon's "What is a Nerd?" poster; it is quite another when an uber-Nerd comes along and writes on the poster that the corrected version of pi has an error in the 20th decimal place, and posts a 30 decimal place correction to the previously corrected value... (I'm not making this up -- this really happened, circa 1976). Some people are closet cases, no matter how many history courses and charm schooling they get. It sort of like ugly women (something else our alma mater had in abundance): it doesn't matter how much make-up they put on, or how much poise training they take -- a pound of commercial bondo couldn't make a face like that look attractive, and no amount of designer clothing is going to make a 50 lbs over weight coed look like a Penthouse center-fold.

[snip]

Conversely I would like to see people getting a liberal education be exposed more to basic scientific studies, such as overview of various theories and technologies and courses in logic and reasoning and the scientific method. I am not talking about math, but more about concepts like the origin of the world, and the properties of materials, and economic principles. I am constantly confounded in my professional career by people who simply can not 'think straight', and this is one of the reasons for some of the misuse of science - the ensuing problems created by irrational people who make dumb decisions about technical matters gets blamed on the science itself - like the science 'knows' what it will be used-for.

Ahhh; but here's the rub -- Mathematics is the lingua Franca of science, and if you can't read it or speak it, you can't fully understand it. It's like trying to appreciate Italian literature without being able to speak or read Italian. Additionally, success in higher Mathematics is prima facia evidence of having the ability to reason logically. That's not to say those not schooled in higher Math can't think logically, but those who are are assuredly capable of it; for the rest, it is problematic.

I've never met a mathematician who went around bragging about being ignorant of history. I have met historians who go around bragging bout being ignorant of history.

Agree with Elmo that 'socially inept' is not quite the right word. Some nerds are by nature introverts and are shy and incomfortable around people, i.e., have trouble being sociable (who knows where this comes from.....genes or upbringing or social environment...?). What I mean is that due to the extreme focus on narrow technical subjects and a lack of exposure and/or interest in broader subjects, some such bright people can't sometimes function well in arenas where people skills are critical. It's rare in my experience to find someone who is super smart and also very 'cool' socially. Sometimes people are also so bright that they tout their brains, and thus are obnoxious and relegated to the 'back room'. Some people are also so gregarious that there dumbness shows through because they can't shut up and think. The ones that are well-versed tend to make excellent leaders and make a lot of money, but it's hard to think of one. Bill Clinton is an example of someone with good skills in both areas, but did not realize his potential as he had the fatal flaw of a loose zipper and a jerk wife. Bill Gates seems to have seasoned well, being now much less of a nerd and pretty saavy at dealing with people. DC seems to be an odd haven for smart people with broad perspective - hence making it an interesting place to discuss heavy issues. The other side (on some other websites?) is people who obsess over pro sports or religion (the herd mentality of the stadium or the church...?)....

Thanks for a very interesting article and thanks again to Floyd Pinkus for some very good comments. This is a truly great forum we have here!

Sometimes people are also so bright that they tout their brains, and thus are obnoxious and relegated to the 'back room'.

I'm a fan of the old aphorism that says if a person truly has a superior intellect they will never need to tell you about it. That kind of thing usually advertises itself.

l&o.jpg

doink-doink.mp3

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

l&o.jpg

doink-doink.mp3

wtf?

l&o.jpg

doink-doink.mp3

wtf?

A spammer was neutered.

The doink doink is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OlCVNn9ZeY

ah.

ah.

Hey, sometimes knowing the *rest of the story* is just a big let down.

Sorry, just messing around

Sorry, just messing around

Our version of the Viking Kittehs?

Sorry, just messing around

You really ought to fix the trap door such that the contestant just drops into the tortoise pit, without marking the thread as 'updated'.
Just a suggestion ...

... [The report] even mandates that courses which fulfill the Science and Technology requirement “frame this material in the context of social issues” ...

Political indoctrination in the guise of sentimental idiocy. To do such "framing" is to pollute the sciences with twaddle or worse.

"Now, class, let's examine how Lenz's Law impacts social issues ...".

It's just another Wedge with which to force political agenda crap into any field which hasn't already been polluted with political crap, a perversion of education.

Agree. Good article.

I went to 'one of those nerd schools' where they offer a thorough education in a specific (usually technical) subject for which you already have an expressed keen interest (such as "my ambition in life is to become a rocket scientist"). This is what I wanted and got (I did not want to spends years and a fortune learning about subjects that to me have no interest or practical daily significance to a modern person (such as all manner of BS courses devoted to minutia about abscure aspects of history, like "Homosexual Innuendos in the Works of Shakespeare and Blake: A Comparision" - I don't give a fauk). There was no such thing as a traditional 'liberal' education where I went to school, however, the nerds are required to take electives in areas that relate to 'nerd' subjects, like history, psych, politics, and so on. However, that was the theory - exposure to information does mean it sinks in or will have an effect, despite the exams. I had an illuminating discussion with my frustrated prof of an elective history course, in this regard. He told me "I hate teaching here. No one gives a shit about this stuff." (a direct quote).

The problem I had was the offerings in these 'electives' were meager, and were not structured to complement the core technical courses taught elsewhere, such a social and political implications of various technologies. In other words, the tech stuff should be taught as factual material, and not get mixed in with the 'liberal' stuff.

I solved my desire to learn about certain topics that were not offered as electives by simply reading stuff on the subject at my leisure, like about religion and other personal topics.

The problem with this heavy emphasis on technical "training" is that some nerds never get a 'high level' view of the world (i.e. they are totally focused on their 'field'), and hence become socially inept.

I have some friends who went to Harvard and studied the same technical subject as me. I can guarantee that when they got the Bachelor's degree, they knew jack about the field, and thus were not prepared to enter the field. However, they were more well-rounded about the world in general, AND ALSO were expected to go on to grad school where they would get the guts of their technical education.

Conversely I would like to see people getting a liberal education be exposed more to basic scientific studies, such as overview of various theories and technologies and courses in logic and reasoning and the scientific method. I am not talking about math, but more about concepts like the origin of the world, and the properties of materials, and economic principles. I am constantly confounded in my professional career by people who simply can not 'think straight', and this is one of the reasons for some of the misuse of science - the ensuing problems created by irrational people who make dumb decisions about technical matters gets blamed on the science itself - like the science 'knows' what it will be used-for. It's the old story of "the messenger brings a message of bad news to the King, and the King shoots the messenger". That will help. Right.

End of diatribe.

Well, I am a sort of two minds here. Unless one is prepared to grossly extend the time of college study, there is only so much that can be taught and learned. Plus, I came from a system of technical/vocational training, plain and simple - and I see the merits of that approach. The non-technical extras I picked on my own - and obviously I had to value these extras high enough to spend time and effort on acquiring them. Charles Murray opined that the basics of "librul idukashian" [as it has been traditionally understood, not the PC crap] are to be put in place in high school, and I think he has a point there. And as for social ineptitude - the Asps [nerds] are still functional, even if not in every situation. But then, we are usually smart enough not to get too far from our comfort zones.

Sorry, just messing around

Our version of the Viking Kittehs?

I tend to think of the VKs as being used for making current persons into unpersons - it's a sign of a pvrge. Spammers don't even deserve that much