Education in the USA

[Woodruff]

Nah if you look at his original post he is clearly outlining liberal opinions on social issues; and accuses them of indoctrination.

He can try and back peddle all he like with this tangent. But as far as I am concerned this thread was answered pages ago.

I agree that this thread ended pages ago (since I ended it motherfucker).

Great. So what is your conclusion? America's education system leans to the right, or is it straight down the center? Or do we not have enough information to have an opinion one way or the other? And if it leans left, the education system can resist the temptation to crusade their political beliefs in minds that are sent to them for the specific purpose of molding?

Teachers lean left for two reasons: (1) anecdotal evidence; (2) teachers unions

Not indoctrination for three reasons: (1) doesn't work (e.g. Phatscotty, TGD); (2) no evidence of indoctrination or plan of indoctrination; (3) simpler reason teachers lean left (see (2) above).

Okay, let's go down this evidence path. Let's just say there was evidence or indoctrination. What would you expect that evidence to look like? A video recording? A written letter? back n forth emails between 2 or more professors talking about indoctrination techniques? recorded conversations between 2 or more people in the teachers lounge? What would the evidence look like?

Any of the above.

I would amend that to "any of the above in a high rate of frequency". Hell, anybody can find a video recording or an email from a loon or two. That doesn't show evidence of a plan for widespread indoctrination.

[thegreekdog]

He needs to find evidence of indoctrination, which means he needs to find evidence of a concerted effort throughout the country. He's not going to be able to find that. If he does find that evidence, I will be the first to agree with him. You can't argue "the US schools are indoctrinating our students" by posting videos of random teachers telling people how great Obama is.

[Lootifer]

The right thinks the left is wrong and wants to have a discussion. The left thinks the right is stupid, racist, and evil; and under those preconceived notions, any discussion on the matter is beneath them.

The left thinks the right is wrong and wants to have a discussion. The right thinks the left are stupid leechers, will do anything to bring down the rich and exploit handouts wherever possible; and under those preconceived notions, any discussion on the matter is beneath them.

[Symmetry]

The right thinks the left is wrong and wants to have a discussion. The left thinks the right is stupid, racist, and evil; and under those preconceived notions, any discussion on the matter is beneath them.

The left thinks the right is wrong and wants to have a discussion. The right thinks the left are stupid leechers, will do anything to bring down the rich and exploit handouts wherever possible; and under those preconceived notions, any discussion on the matter is beneath them.

[waauw]

[Gillipig]

The right thinks the left is wrong and wants to have a discussion. The left thinks the right is stupid, racist, and evil; and under those preconceived notions, any discussion on the matter is beneath them.

The left thinks the right is wrong and wants to have a discussion. The right thinks the left are stupid leechers, will do anything to bring down the rich and exploit handouts wherever possible; and under those preconceived notions, any discussion on the matter is beneath them.

The same can be said for most atheists as well. We think we are better than all believers because we use our sense of logic to determine whether there exists a god or not, while they go by faith.

[Lootifer]

Okay, let's go down this evidence path. Let's just say there was evidence or indoctrination. What would you expect that evidence to look like? A video recording? A written letter? back n forth emails between 2 or more professors talking about indoctrination techniques? recorded conversations between 2 or more people in the teachers lounge? What would the evidence look like?

The place to begin would be the syllabus. Since you have already mentioned it I am assuming it is probably an easy example to find evidence of: Please if you will PS show me prrof of the claim below: (underlined)

It's a completely centralized education, common core standardized initiative. It replaces Shakespeare with diversity training, replaces Americanism with globalism, and anything else any future gov't thinks is best for a one size fits all approach.

Funnily enough the exact same strategic objective applies to mass market businesses who provide goods and services to the general population.

[Symmetry]

The right thinks the left is wrong and wants to have a discussion. The left thinks the right is stupid, racist, and evil; and under those preconceived notions, any discussion on the matter is beneath them.

The left thinks the right is wrong and wants to have a discussion. The right thinks the left are stupid leechers, will do anything to bring down the rich and exploit handouts wherever possible; and under those preconceived notions, any discussion on the matter is beneath them.

The same can be said for most atheists as well. We think we are better than all believers because we use our sense of logic to determine whether there exists a god or not, while they go by faith.

Meh, I'm no fan of religion, but faith I generally respect. Indoctrinating children is always going to be a contentious issue.

[PLAYER57832]

What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended?

show

If you are rich, you can be what you want. If you are not, then you have to be lucky.

[Phatscotty]

He needs to find evidence of indoctrination, which means he needs to find evidence of a concerted effort throughout the country. He's not going to be able to find that. If he does find that evidence, I will be the first to agree with him. You can't argue "the US schools are indoctrinating our students" by posting videos of random teachers telling people how great Obama is.

I already admitted as much regarding evidence, I think my exact words to you before were "it's not going to work that way".

And my videos are not random. I understand you keep hammering that I don't have any evidence, and I admit there probably won't be any evidence other than circumstantial. But you don't need to minimize my examples like that: Telling kids Obama is great is one thing, making them memorize a song about Obama's greatness before his first year as president has even expired is beyond an opinion. If the song were about Jesus, maybe then you would understand.

What I have been posting is a bunch of examples of how the individual seeks to indoctrinate much younger and much more vulnerable and impressionable minds. When my examples start to get into the hundreds, while it may not be peer reviewed evidence, at least them maybe finally you could start being able to make a decision one way or another. But if you have to wait for evidence for every little thing before you can make even the smallest observation, well that's going to be a rough life of trial and error for ya.

When a liar knows all they have to do is keep the truth away from you, and all you do is keep repeating there is no evidence that you are being lied to, the liar is going to own you until you "wise" up.

btw, has anyone been able to find a single example where a Conservative does anything in a classroom close to the Lefties I have shown? Why is that? Everything points in the direction I have stated. All you guys have is "well, they haven't come out and admitted it" They aren't going to, so understand I understand that, and understand it's time to stop expecting that.

[Phatscotty]

What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended?

show

If you are rich, you can be what you want. If you are not, then you have to be lucky.

are you sure you can't name a rich person now who grew up dirt poor? Because that would kind of contradict the myth you are propagating.

My statement on the matter: If you set your mind to something legit and work hard, nothing can stop you. f*ck luck.

[Woodruff]

What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended?

show

If you are rich, you can be what you want. If you are not, then you have to be lucky.

That's really not true, you realize. Right?

[Symmetry]

What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended?

show

If you are rich, you can be what you want. If you are not, then you have to be lucky.

That's really not true, you realize. Right?

It's not really untrue as generalizations go either. Right?

[Woodruff]

But you don't need to minimize my examples like that

With only a few exceptions, your examples really do need to be minimized like that.

Telling kids Obama is great is one thing, making them memorize a song about Obama's greatness before his first year as president has even expired is beyond an opinion.

The election of President Obama was a pretty momentous occasion, actually. It's not at all surprising that a few people went overboard, having had the first black (yes thegreekdog, half-black) elected President. It was a pretty big deal for this country.

If the song were about Jesus, maybe then you would understand.

No, that would be an entirely different thing, as it would fall under the separation of church and state. Do you even think before you type this crap?

What I have been posting is a bunch of examples of how the individual seeks to indoctrinate much younger and much more vulnerable and impressionable minds.

That must be why you rail against the church so much, I'll bet. Right?

When my examples start to get into the hundreds, while it may not be peer reviewed evidence, at least them maybe finally you could start being able to make a decision one way or another. But if you have to wait for evidence for every little thing before you can make even the smallest observation, well that's going to be a rough life of trial and error for ya.

Given your usual tactics, it's really not asking too much.

When a liar knows all they have to do is keep the truth away from you, and all you do is keep repeating there is no evidence that you are being lied to, the liar is going to own you until you "wise" up.

It must not work that way, because we're all pretty sure that you're not owning anyone here.

btw, has anyone been able to find a single example where a Conservative does anything in a classroom close to the Lefties I have shown? Why is that?

Probably because far too many conservatives in this country have become whimpering sycophants desperately searching for a crisis or conspiracy so that they can rail on about how they're being persecuted. Yes, I'm actually serious.

Everything points in the direction I have stated. All you guys have is "well, they haven't come out and admitted it" They aren't going to, so understand I understand that, and understand it's time to stop expecting that.

I find your lack of evidence...disturbing.

[Woodruff]

What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended?

show

If you are rich, you can be what you want. If you are not, then you have to be lucky.

That's really not true, you realize. Right?

It's not really untrue as generalizations go either. Right?

First of all, she didn't state it as a generalization. Secondly, I would still disagree with it.

[Woodruff]

What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended?

show

If you are rich, you can be what you want. If you are not, then you have to be lucky.

are you sure you can't name a rich person now who grew up dirt poor? Because that would kind of contradict the myth you are propagating.

No it wouldn't. Why do you believe that would contradict her statement at all? This isn't a difficult concept, you know.

My statement on the matter: If you set your mind to something legit and work hard, nothing can stop you. f*ck luck.

Well that's certainly not true either.

[Symmetry]

What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended?

show

If you are rich, you can be what you want. If you are not, then you have to be lucky.

That's really not true, you realize. Right?

It's not really untrue as generalizations go either. Right?

First of all, she didn't state it as a generalization. Secondly, I would still disagree with it.

"If you are rich, you can be what you want. If you are not, then you have to be lucky." That's a generalization.

[Woodruff]

What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended?

show

If you are rich, you can be what you want. If you are not, then you have to be lucky.

That's really not true, you realize. Right?

It's not really untrue as generalizations go either. Right?

First of all, she didn't state it as a generalization. Secondly, I would still disagree with it.

"If you are rich, you can be what you want. If you are not, then you have to be lucky." That's a generalization.

"Generally speaking, if you are rich, you can be what you want. If you are not, then you have to be lucky." That's a generalization. Her wording is more akin to a statement of fact.

[waauw]

lol check this out: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-07/20-completely-ridiculous-college-courses-being-offered-us-universities

20 Completely Ridiculous College Courses Being Offered At U.S. Universities

1. "What If Harry Potter Is Real?" (Appalachian State University)
2. "God, Sex, Chocolate: Desire and the Spiritual Path" (UC San Diego)
3. "GaGa for Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity" (The University Of Virginia)
4. "Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame" (The University Of South Carolina)
5. "Philosophy And Star Trek" (Georgetown)
6. "Invented Languages: Klingon and Beyond" (The University Of Texas)
7. "The Science Of Superheroes" (UC Irvine)
8. "Learning From YouTube" (Pitzer College)
9. "Arguing with Judge Judy" (UC Berkeley)
10. "Elvis As Anthology" (The University Of Iowa)
11. "The Feminist Critique Of Christianity" (The University Of Pennsylvania)
12. "Zombies In Popular Media" (Columbia College)
13. "Far Side Entomology" (Oregon State)
14. "Interrogating Gender: Centuries of Dramatic Cross-Dressing" (Swarthmore)
15. "Oh, Look, a Chicken!" Embracing Distraction as a Way of Knowing (Belmont University)
16. "The Textual Appeal of Tupac Shakur" (University of Washington)
17. "Cyberporn And Society" (State University of New York at Buffalo)
18. "Sport For The Spectator" (The Ohio State University)
19. "Getting Dressed" (Princeton)
20. "How To Watch Television" (Montclair)

[Phatscotty]

lol check this out: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-07/20-completely-ridiculous-college-courses-being-offered-us-universities

20 Completely Ridiculous College Courses Being Offered At U.S. Universities

8. "Learning From YouTube" (Pitzer College)

That's not ridiculous!!! (what state is Pitzer in? )

For years I fave fallen asleep to history videos and documentaries and debates and lectures every single night. That is part of the reason there is so much negative trollchatter. You would need to be at it constantly just to keep up.

[Woodruff]

lol check this out: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-07/20-completely-ridiculous-college-courses-being-offered-us-universities

20 Completely Ridiculous College Courses Being Offered At U.S. Universities

1. "What If Harry Potter Is Real?" (Appalachian State University)
2. "God, Sex, Chocolate: Desire and the Spiritual Path" (UC San Diego)
3. "GaGa for Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity" (The University Of Virginia)
4. "Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame" (The University Of South Carolina)
5. "Philosophy And Star Trek" (Georgetown)
6. "Invented Languages: Klingon and Beyond" (The University Of Texas)
7. "The Science Of Superheroes" (UC Irvine)
8. "Learning From YouTube" (Pitzer College)
9. "Arguing with Judge Judy" (UC Berkeley)
10. "Elvis As Anthology" (The University Of Iowa)
11. "The Feminist Critique Of Christianity" (The University Of Pennsylvania)
12. "Zombies In Popular Media" (Columbia College)
13. "Far Side Entomology" (Oregon State)
14. "Interrogating Gender: Centuries of Dramatic Cross-Dressing" (Swarthmore)
15. "Oh, Look, a Chicken!" Embracing Distraction as a Way of Knowing (Belmont University)
16. "The Textual Appeal of Tupac Shakur" (University of Washington)
17. "Cyberporn And Society" (State University of New York at Buffalo)
18. "Sport For The Spectator" (The Ohio State University)
19. "Getting Dressed" (Princeton)
20. "How To Watch Television" (Montclair)

1. #5 is actually a very good course. I did a subset of it as my teaching practicum when I was trained in instruction for the Air Force.

2. I would LOVE to take that #15. Sounds like a lot of fun.

3. I am shocked that the University of Nebraska isn't listed here.

[Lootifer]

lol check this out: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-07/20-completely-ridiculous-college-courses-being-offered-us-universities

20 Completely Ridiculous College Courses Being Offered At U.S. Universities

1. "What If Harry Potter Is Real?" (Appalachian State University)
2. "God, Sex, Chocolate: Desire and the Spiritual Path" (UC San Diego)
3. "GaGa for Gaga: Sex, Gender, and Identity" (The University Of Virginia)
4. "Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame" (The University Of South Carolina)
5. "Philosophy And Star Trek" (Georgetown)
6. "Invented Languages: Klingon and Beyond" (The University Of Texas)
7. "The Science Of Superheroes" (UC Irvine)
8. "Learning From YouTube" (Pitzer College)
9. "Arguing with Judge Judy" (UC Berkeley)
10. "Elvis As Anthology" (The University Of Iowa)
11. "The Feminist Critique Of Christianity" (The University Of Pennsylvania)
12. "Zombies In Popular Media" (Columbia College)
13. "Far Side Entomology" (Oregon State)
14. "Interrogating Gender: Centuries of Dramatic Cross-Dressing" (Swarthmore)
15. "Oh, Look, a Chicken!" Embracing Distraction as a Way of Knowing (Belmont University)
16. "The Textual Appeal of Tupac Shakur" (University of Washington)
17. "Cyberporn And Society" (State University of New York at Buffalo)
18. "Sport For The Spectator" (The Ohio State University)
19. "Getting Dressed" (Princeton)
20. "How To Watch Television" (Montclair)

The bulk of those are just simply communication/critical thinking/philosophy/argumentative discussion courses just dressed up to attract student. This has always been going on in entry level papers. Also a point to note that many of them are one off seminars...

I actually agree with the high level sentiment: too many people are going to university, getting student loans and wasting time and money. However a bias article about courses (or seminars) with artificially attention grabbing titles or themes is nothing more than political rhetoric and wankery. I expect better from zerohedge

[tzor]

lol check this out: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-07/20-completely-ridiculous-college-courses-being-offered-us-universities

20 Completely Ridiculous College Courses Being Offered At U.S. Universities

6. "Invented Languages: Klingon and Beyond" (The University Of Texas)

This actually sounds interesting. The synopsis also mentions the real attempt at an invented language, Esperanto. J.R.R. Tolkien was a linguist and actually wrote languages for the various races in his fantasy world. I actually have "The Vulcan Language" and it is interesting reading.

I can actually take this one step further; as a computer programmer I am aware that programming languages are to some extent "invented" and are not really an organically grown language.

[thegreekdog]

He needs to find evidence of indoctrination, which means he needs to find evidence of a concerted effort throughout the country. He's not going to be able to find that. If he does find that evidence, I will be the first to agree with him. You can't argue "the US schools are indoctrinating our students" by posting videos of random teachers telling people how great Obama is.

I already admitted as much regarding evidence, I think my exact words to you before were "it's not going to work that way".

Right, so in my mind, you cannot prove indoctrination.

And my videos are not random. I understand you keep hammering that I don't have any evidence, and I admit there probably won't be any evidence other than circumstantial. But you don't need to minimize my examples like that: Telling kids Obama is great is one thing, making them memorize a song about Obama's greatness before his first year as president has even expired is beyond an opinion. If the song were about Jesus, maybe then you would understand.

The problem is not with your videos; the problem is your conclusion regarding those videos. If I posted ten or fifteen youtube videos about Italians in the Mafia, your conclusion would be that all or most Italians are in the Mafia. That is not even close to reasonable. If teachers unions were directing teachers to lead songs about the president's greatness, your conclusion would be reasonable. But they aren't, so your conclusion is not reasonable. Essentially, your contributions to this thread boil down to posting examples of shitty teaching. Instead of acknowleding that, you've taken it a step farther, and that's what I have a problem with.

What I have been posting is a bunch of examples of how the individual seeks to indoctrinate much younger and much more vulnerable and impressionable minds. When my examples start to get into the hundreds, while it may not be peer reviewed evidence, at least them maybe finally you could start being able to make a decision one way or another. But if you have to wait for evidence for every little thing before you can make even the smallest observation, well that's going to be a rough life of trial and error for ya.

See above. You can make every observation you want about the specific teachers about whom you've posted videos. You cannot, however, make an observation about teachers generally, or, worse yet, an observation about public schooling and indoctrination.

[Woodruff]

The problem is not with your videos; the problem is your conclusion regarding those videos. If I posted ten or fifteen youtube videos about Italians in the Mafia, your conclusion would be that all or most Italians are in the Mafia. That is not even close to reasonable. If teachers unions were directing teachers to lead songs about the president's greatness, your conclusion would be reasonable. But they aren't, so your conclusion is not reasonable. Essentially, your contributions to this thread boil down to posting examples of shitty teaching.

Bingo.