Education: Your Own, and that of Society

Just a quick question that I think might lead to an interesting discussion. Also, please post your reasoning for choosing your specific answer below. (Note: To those who have already completed their education, simply read the poll question as "How far have you pursued your education?")

My answer to the first poll question would be a Ph.D., in Mathematics, emphasis to be decided.

In addition to the poll question, I would like to propose an additional question:

What do you think would be an appropriate level of education for the "average citizen" to have so that they would be able to make well informed decisions, as opposed to simply following the group mentality?

(Note: Subsequent options imply knowledge of the previous ones)

1.) Below an Elementary School Education
2.) An Elementary School Education (Referred to as Primary School in some areas)
3.) A High School Education (Referred to as Secondary School in some areas.)
4.) A Bachelor's degree in some field (Including completion of the proper general requirements.)
5.) Other (To be described in your post.)

For this section, I would choose option 4.), since it would ensure that the populus would have a decent body of knowledge to consult, hopefully minimizing the "follow the group" mentality, and encouraging people to think through matters in a logical manner.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Other (To be described in your post.)

I was seeking an associate’s degree in the field of Information Security, but all that changed when my school kicked me out.

I’ve only completed high school and some college. I will be attending a different college starting in January of next year. My major will be *sigh* liberal arts. I can't decide on what to be, go figure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My educational level I am aiming at

A PhD in developmental biology, which I am currently trying to finish.



What do you think would be an appropriate level of education for the "average citizen" to have so that they would be able to make well informed decisions, as opposed to simply following the group mentality?

There are idiots at any level of education, therefore the level of education is no garantee for an informed descision. I am also not aware of any studies which show that people with higher education levels making on average 'better' decisions. Is there a direct relationship between education level and 'better' decisions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm basically going to end up with two college degrees, one
accumulated bachelors of science (thank you credits!) and a
load of computer certifications.

I first wanted to go all the way to PhD but it takes a long time
and I can never seem to stay motivated long enough to study
one subject for extended periods of time so I'm basically giving
up on that...

Besides, I can always write a book later

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What's education got to do with being able to think clearly and by yourself.

A lot of education is memorising facts, etc. It doesn't mean you're any cleverer than a guy with no qualifications whatsoever.

That's quite an offensive opinion you have there, really. I'm not educated in the slightest, but it boggles my mind how dumb most of the people in this world are. Most of them can't think for themselves. Educating them wont help, they'll just be sheep who are good at trivia.

 

I picked Ph.D. I am not sure how serious others are that picked it though. I want to obtain mine for Mathematics. Weee!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Work at a think-tank or something.

 

How far do you plan to persue your educaton?
Pursuit of knowledge and understanding never ends, and is certainly not confined to the 4 walls of the classroom.

Note: To those who have already completed their education,
Pursuit of knowledge is never completed.


What do you think would be an appropriate level of education for the "average citizen" to have so that they would be able to make well informed decisions, as opposed to simply following the group mentality?

you equate formal education not only with intelligence but with free thought!

how ironic, as your post clearly indicates that your "education" has stiffled both your intelligence and your freedom of thought.

 

Really? All this time I though you were doing your postdoctoral work. Go figure. (Note: NO sarcasm intended.)

Yes, but I think you would agree that those with an elementary education generally make less well-informed decisions than those with a collegiate education (of course, this is excluding "life experience, since that can fill some gaps in knowledge). A simple example of this is as follows (It concerns the US government, since I only have a cursory knowledge of other systems such as Parliament):

Consider a person running for president of the US, who states that they will reduce all federal income taxes to a 0% flat tax, while paying off the national deficit, increasing funding to schools, while not seeking additional government funding. To someone who has only an elementary school education, this may sound like a great idea, and they end up voting for this person. However, a person with a late high school or early level collegiate education should be able to recognize that the first statement is essentially mutually exclusive of the following three, and thus, vote for another candidate who has a better grasp on reality.

At the moment, I cannot recall any such studies either, however, I think that it should be fairly obvious that it is true. If one has better knowledge of the consequences of their actions, I believe that they will, in general, make better decisions.

Thank you Mr. After School Special.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I thought that it was fairly obvious that I was referring to formal education.

Again, see above.

You seem to have understood that I was referring to formal education here, but not above. Curious...

Also, I think that you would agree that those who are less educated than yourself tend to follow the group mentality, since are easily convinced of the "validity" of an arbitrary group's reasoning.

I doubt that one would read my post in such a manner if they had an open mind, but you seem bent on painting me as some sort of elitist. I contend that your knee-jerk reactions to my statements do have some validity, but currently they are wrapped up in unnecessary vitriol.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be basing your ideas on the fact that "life experience" plays a vital role in education. However, that is one aspect I chose not to address in this thread due to the fact that the concept is so varied and vague. If you would like to refine your ideas based on the above statements, then please do so, because dissenting opinions are what add life to a debate.

Firstly, nice to 'meet' you Blunther, and it's nice to see that my thread had some idea that drew you out of your month-long hiatus. As I already discussed in my reply to spuriousmonkey, I think that if one has better knowledge of the consequences of their actions, I believe that they will, in general, make better decisions. I believe that this knowledge can be gained from formal education.

To the contrary, I believe that formal education is much more than memorizing facts, for it helps to develop abstract thinking abilities and problem solving skills. This is evidenced by circuit design in EE, proofs in Mathematics, and using programming to problem solve in CSci. Fact memorization will only get one so far in terms of their formal education, for an understanding of the subject matter is required to succeed in academia and the workplace.

It's not meant to be offensive, but with the variety of posters out there, I'm not surprised that someone found it to be such.

That is one possibility, however, I believe that a formal education encourages free thought, and by acquiring one, they will be able to make more well-informed decisions based upon their newfound knowledge base, and hopefully, be something more than smarter sheep.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I was a comp. sci. student until october, when I decided to go the
other way to get more bang for my buck. Anyway, the point of my
post is that during my stay there, all the professors did was throw
endless lists of things to write and work on. I wouldn't mind if the
work actually had SOMETHING to do with the class! Notes read in
class were mostly left untouched until exam time and really, it was
simple stuff. What I concluded from this experience: university only
requires HARD WORK. You don't need any smarts: I should know, all
my classmates were retarded. The difference between those that
passed and failed was only how much work was put in the assignments
and how persistent they were at doing the teachers' bidding. Nuts
to that, I'll just get an accumulated bachelors of sci. and laugh at
everyone who slaved for it there...

I'm not saying this is true of every hard science, but so far, Comp.
Sci. has been one hell of a disappointment.

 

i say

spookz: cmere bitch!
dankass: yes master

spookz:dont you ever argue with me again!
dankass: yes master

spookz: a=b!
dankass: yes master

spookz:shut the hell up!
dankass: yes master

crapthar spins

Fine. But you asked for it. Here's what I saw as the main idea of your initial reply: gendanken is such a poor debater that she would be better off remaining silent.

which part of the dialogue indicates the dank ass is a poor debater? did you not pull shit that is extraneous to the dialogue in order to reach your conclusion? as far as i am concerned there is nothing that is implicit in the dialogue that indicates poor debating skills on her part. i am insisting that she accept contradictions. (a=b) this presumes that she does not. contrary to your assertion that she is a poor debater, it would seem i acknowledge her debating skills and seek to stifle them

next....i say...

heh, i got another one....cluck cluck cluck.
wanna give that a shot?

crapthar spins...

Frankly, if I wanted to, I could interpret your "clucking" as the prelude to an argument against animal cruelty (e.g. "This is the cry of a forlorn fowl before its foul execution."), or one supporting vegetarianism (e.g "How can one eat something that speaks?"), or practically anything else in that vein since your original statement was so abstract.

this was the funniest i read in a while. how anal can you get? what the fuck motivates you dog? you recognize it is of no practical use to give meaning to such ridiculous abstraction but yet you are unable to refrain from doing so.

so...ahhh... think things will improve with the phd?

 

I have a bachelor's and do not plan on getting a master's, though I may change my mind.

I started with chem. eng. which sucked, went to comp. sci. which sucked, and ended up with MIS which was a joke but I had to get a degree in something. Now I wish I would have gone physics. I would probably go back and get another bachelors before I went to masters & phd.

 

Dapthar:
"As I already discussed in my reply to spuriousmonkey, I think that if one has better knowledge of the consequences of their actions, I believe that they will, in general, make better decisions. I believe that this knowledge can be gained from formal education."

I think I can safely say that that is not necessarily correlated with education. Better knowledge of outcome of actions can be gained in a multiplicity of ways outside education, and moreover, you aught to have to demonstrate how current education inculcates better knowledge of the consequences of outcomes of decisions and suchlike. Again, I think many people here just dont see that link. It may be that you have a different view of how current education for the majority of people is, than what the rest of us have. In which case it would be nice for you to elaborate on what you see current education as doing.

"To the contrary, I believe that formal education is much more than memorizing facts, for it helps to develop abstract thinking abilities and problem solving skills."

See, this is a good start. But I think you'll find that most of us here will say that is not encouraged in current formal education, and hasnt been much encouraged anywhere, except amongst a small elite of people.

"That is one possibility, however, I believe that a formal education encourages free thought, and by acquiring one, they will be able to make more well-informed decisions based upon their newfound knowledge base, and hopefully, be something more than smarter sheep. "

Maybe you are confusing knowledge base with intelligence and problem solving ability here. I find it interesting your calling it a formal education. The current formal education encourages minimal free thought, since such thought leads to rocking the boat. Thus, it is impossible to put a definite level of education as a limit on what people should have to be able to participate propely in society.
From what I know and have experienced, all you really need, if you've actually had a good education more along the lines of your desired formal education, is to have finished high school, ie be 18 or so before leaving school, although something between 16 and 18 would likely suffice. You can learn all the necessary thinking abilities at school, I wish I had been taught them.


Edit- I forgot my education. All the way through Bsc (hons) and Msc, thus making me on paper better qualified than both my parents put together. Said education has had little effect upon my ability to be an informed memeber of society, the fact that my ability to be so has increased along with my education is simply due to my growing up in those years of education.

 

Currently doing double degree in Mathematics (combinatorics as major) and Business Administration. Hope to then do a Masters in Accounting, and perhaps a MBA. I'd love to go for a doctorate in math though... combinatorics

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Firstly, a note to spookz:

Your post, while containing some valid points, is off topic. I would prefer not to continue this particular debate in this thread, since it will most likely lead to it being closed. However, if you would like to start a new thread addressing the issues raised in your post, I will gladly discuss them there, but I will not continue the aforementioned debate in this thread.

Well, I guess the positive power Mathematics is great enough to fight off the inherent evil of Business Administration.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually, a fellow student in one of my Mathematics classes is taking an entry level graduate combinatorics class, and I believe he said that the enrollment was around the low 40's the first few weeks, and later plunged into the single digits sometime after the first test.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Regarding combinatorics, based upon my meager experience in this field (1 class), I find it intriguing that the even the shortest, most simply worded problems require considerably more effort then one may gather upon an initial inspection.

Some may state that, but I assert that they are most likely referring to a pre-collegiate education, since I will admit that in elementary and high school there is no shortage of "busy work", but even in this arena there are many opportunities to develop one's creativity (this idea is discussed in greater depth a few replies down). However, I have found that collegiate education (in the US at least) is radically different from that of elementary and high school, in that a majority of the work is challenging, and forces one to think critically about the material.

Well, I actually was considering problem solving abilities to be a part of the knowledge base, but I can see upon review of my statements that I wasn't making that point clear.

I find this to be rather odd conclusion that you have drawn about the formal education system. If you are referring to the system in its entirety (from preschool to postdoctoral), then I will have to disagree, since there are many activities that encourage creative thought throughout one's schooling. A few that spring to mind are Art classes and creative writing exercises in English, both of which are available to students starting in elementary school. As one enters college there is a veritable bounty of activities for which creative thinking is a necessity. Examples of this are proofs in Mathematics (an issue that gains importance as one progresses through their degree), or the simple act of programming in Computer Science, or circuit design in Electrical Engineering, which, akin to proofs in Mathematics, becomes of paramount importance as one progresses.

I would like to see what reasoning led you to your aforementioned conclusion, since I myself do not arrive at it upon analysis of the same (or at least similar) ideas.

I agree that because of the inherent variations in individuals, a definite level would be difficult to set up, however, I think that a Bachelor's degree in the field of one's choice should be able to properly equip most with the proper skills to become well-informed members of society. Why? Because the inherent regularity of the general education requirements provides a solid ideological basis that is common to all graduates. These requirements usually include at least one Mathematics class, a Political Science class of some sort (which is rather useful to those who choose to vote), a couple of English classes, and a few Art classes (which includes music, painting, sculpture, etc.). I doubt that one could contend that the above classes, in addition to those in one's major, would not be proper preparation for most to be able to make well informed decisions about societal, social, and personal matters.

Yes, but public schools (in the US) are sometimes a game of chance, and sadly, most students are not fortunate enough to have involved parents, or instructors who are well versed in the material they teach. That is why I suggested that a sufficient level of education would be that of a Bachelor's degree in one's desired field, since completion of that degree generally implies that one has a certain level of mastery of the educational experiences that precede it, namely elementary and high school.

May I ask what field your degrees were in?

 

"Some may state that, but I assert that they are most likely referring to a pre-collegiate education, since I will admit that in elementary and high school there is no shortage of "busy work", but even in this arena there are many opportunities to develop one's creativity (this idea is discussed in greater depth a few replies down). However, I have found that collegiate education (in the US at least) is radically different from that of elementary and high school, in that a majority of the work is challenging, and forces one to think critically about the material."

I find it interesting you talking about creativity, when that is not necessary to be a well informed and useful member of society. What is more needed are critical thinking skills, which are indeed learnable at school, but not always applied. in fact, applying them too widely leads to being slapped down. And just because you can think critically about scientific endeavours doesnt mean you either can apply them across the board, or do indeed do so.

"I find this to be rather odd conclusion that you have drawn about the formal education system. "

Pehaps I overstated it. Nevertheless, you could perhaps propose the question to the rest of the posters here about how much that statement is correct.

"then I will have to disagree, since there are many activities that encourage creative thought throughout one's schooling. A few that spring to mind are Art classes and creative writing exercises in English, both of which are available to students starting in elementary school. "

Again, we have this conflation of creativity and ability to make informed decisions. I agree, that arts and english are useful to help the mind grow and the person become more rounded etc, but the problem comes in measuring these characteristics, and I'm afraid that the current school set up is inadequate in that respect.
It should be born in mind that I am talking mainly about the UK school system. I have no personal experience of the USA one, but ask away and I'm sure many of the posters here will answer.


"Well, I actually was considering problem solving abilities to be a part of the knowledge base, but I can see upon review of my statements that I wasn't making that point clear."

Ahh. I define knowledge base as what we know, not problem solving capabilities.

" agree that because of the inherent variations in individuals, a definite level would be difficult to set up, however, I think that a Bachelor's degree in the field of one's choice should be able to properly equip most with the proper skills to become well-informed members of society."

Should, or does? My contention is that these capabilities are teachable in school, and a degree is unnecessary. I know many people who didnt go to university, yet are quite capable of reasoned argument and knowledgeable activitys. The case is that university is a place for higher, more specific study. A concentration of knowledge etc, honing skuills you have already learnt, upon specific areas of knowledge. Thus, it is not for everyone, and you do acknowledge there are variations in individuals, so presumably you can comprehend that university is not for everyone, and is not even necessary in many topics. There has been a multiplicaiton of university degrees in the UK in the past decade and more, many of which are entirely superflous, when the better way to learn is on the job, eg hospitality management.

"Yes, but public schools (in the US) are sometimes a game of chance, and sadly, most students are not fortunate enough to have involved parents, or instructors who are well versed in the material they teach. "

That is exactly the point. If the schools were better, it would work. But yet, I am not convinced thatuniversities are any better at inculcating intelligent thinking to their charges. This is based upon the fact taht most university teaching is done by means of bums on seats lectures, becasue it is cheaper. Laboratories are done on the cheap and without much input. I could go on.

It seems to me the main strands of opposition to your proposal of a bachelors degree level requirement, is that firstly you are not necessarily going ot apply your thinking abilitites gaiend at university to different problems you find in politics etc, and secondly, that the system is not quite set up for that purpose. Thirdly, if you do it properly, you can teach all that at school, and thus leave us back where we are just now, at the age of 18. In this country anyways.

"May I ask what field your degrees were in?"

Certainly. Chemistry degree, with modules in management and geology, then a metallic and ceramic materials Msc.
Perhaps you could tell us yours.

 

master's degee in law
you can not operate as a full scale lawyer if you don't have it in Latvia

 

I diverted to that point momentarily based on your earlier quote (shown below) which implied a connection between creative thought and the ability to properly participate in society.

"Maybe you are confusing knowledge base with intelligence and problem solving ability here. I find it interesting your calling it a formal education. The current formal education encourages minimal free thought, since such thought leads to rocking the boat. Thus, it is impossible to put a definite level of education as a limit on what people should have to be able to participate propely in society."

Yes, but I contend that this act of being "slapped down" is due to others without the proper critical thinking skills reacting based upon flawed methodologies, e.g. being driven by emotion.
Consider the following example (which is not meant to offend, but may end up having that effect on some): A teenager (let's call him "X") goes to a party where alcohol is available, drinks copious amounts of it, despite the warnings of his friends (due to a lack of critical thinking skills), and gets in his car to drive home. Shortly thereafter, his car slams into a tree, and X dies instantaneously.

Now, consider someone that accompanied him to the party, saw what was going on, repeatedly warned X and pointed out the dangers of his actions, and tried their hardest to help X out. Consider if this person went to the funeral and stated the following:

"X made some very poor decisions, and despite the repeated warnings of others, he consciously chose to follow a course of action that he knew was extremely dangerous, and as a result, paid the price. He effectively chose to end his own life, and to characterize his death as an "accident" is a fallacy which only serves to satisfy those who will not accept the truth."

There is little doubt that there would most likely be a horrible uprising against this person, and the least that would happen is that they would be thrown out of the funeral parlor. Why? Because the mourners reacted emotionally to an objective analysis of the situation. I contend that if the mourners possessed critical thinking skills, the would not "slap down" this person, but realize that they are speaking the truth.

Thus, if these critical thinking skills were more widespread, those who utilize them would not be chastised by others who refuse to listen to logic.

What difference do you perceive between thinking critically about scientific endeavors and nonscientific endeavors? I ask this because I do not see how one could succeed in critically thinking about Science and not succeed in applying that same logic to topics unrelated to science, since the same general principles are applied in analyzing problems in both.

Very well then.




I propose the following additional question to the Sciforums members who are reading this thread.

Do you believe that the following statement is true?

"... current formal education encourages minimal free thought, since such thought leads to rocking the boat."

If so, why? If not, why not?

See the reasoning for this line of thinking above.

But that is assuming that there are adequate measures of creative thought, and that the school system is not employing them. Since measures of creative thought are rather hard to set up until after one has already passed their elementary school years, I do not believe that the school system can do much better that its current performance in this aspect, unless students are given more individual attention from well qualified instructors.

I used "should" instead of "does" since "does" implies that I have some sort of evidence other than my own experience and those of my fellow students to support my assertion. I wouldn't use "does" unless I had some sort of research to support my claim.

Yes, but the existence of a few people who do posses these abilities is not necessarily indicative of a general trend. I claim that those individuals who you met are not indicative of general behavior, since it is much easier to "pass through" elementary and high schools as opposed to collegiate educational institutions. For example, in the United States, there is a test called the "Basic Standards Test" that tests 8th grade (the last year in US elementary school) English and Mathematics comprehension. The sad fact is that students are allowed to fail the test until they are in 12th grade (the last year in US high school)! After this point, they are not allowed to graduate unless they have passed this test. So even when graduation from high school only "guarantees" an 8th grade level of understanding.

However, you may assert that the student had to pass their high school classes to graduate from high school, so there could be some error with the test. While I do not dispute this claim, I will simply mention that passing a class in high school does not indicate any decent knowledge of the subject. Why? Let me illustrate this by means of an example. In the (public) high school I attended, along with all of the others in the district, the passing grade was a D-! Thus, completion of elementary and high school in the US often does not guarantee more than "mastery" of elementary school concepts.

No, it is not necessary for some topics, however, I feel that society would be bettered if this level of education was their standard rather than a high school education, which is the current norm in the US.

Yes, but skills for a job and skills to succeed in life are not usually one in the same. For example, I doubt being a stock person at a department store teaches any useful life skills other than "hernias can happen to anyone".

Yes, but you must recall that Professors' have office hours weekly and by appointment, so those with troubles should have no difficulty in resolving them. Also, I am not sure about how the University system in the UK works, but at least in the US, most classes for 1st and 2nd year students that have large lectures have a discussion (sometimes called recitation) component that is led by a TA which meets at least once per week. The sole purpose of this discussion component is to address questions in the lecture and resolve difficulties that students may have.

I agree with your claim of frugality, but the input comment I disagree with. The labs I have taken (Biology, Physics I and II, and multiple EE labs) have, overall, had helpful Teaching Assistants who answer my questions rather well.

Yes, but at least those who go through that system have those skills to apply. That is essentially the best one can do, since educators currently can not enter the minds of their students and force them to apply concepts if the students are not so inclined.

Yes, but if the elementary and high school systems were better, then the current level of education most US citizens receive (up to high school) would supply them with the necessary skills. However, "popular culture" tends to indicate otherwise, thus I suggested the Bachelor's degree.

EDIT: The person who asked for this info has been informed already.

EDIT: Spelling.

 

"Yes, but I contend that this act of being "slapped down" is due to others without the proper critical thinking skills reacting based upon flawed methodologies, e.g. being driven by emotion."

HHmm, a typical complaint of a mathematician. Its true, Ive seen plenty of people saying if only others thought logically. Now, in your example, the interesting thing is that critical thinking would have been helpful, but so would better emotional skills, such that the individual doesnt feel the need to drink so much, and doesnt feel as invincible as many youngsters do. The problem is that being driven wholly by emotion is stupid, but hten so is being wholly unemotional. The trick is getting the balance right. Ive recently read an interesting book about emotional intelligence, and how its important in real life. The thing is, that these emotional skills arent quite what you would call critical thinking sckills, and are best learnt at school and when young. In various studies, success in various ways was better correlated with emotional intelligence than with IQ and other such intelligence measures.

"he consciously chose to follow a course of action that he knew was extremely dangerous,"

Exceopt he wasnt actually consicous of how dangerous it was. Thats the thing with humans, they can overide common sense etc. Its an interesting and often useful ability, the problem comes when its misused, and thats where emotional intelligence comes in.

" I ask this because I do not see how one could succeed in critically thinking about Science and not succeed in applying that same logic to topics unrelated to science, since the same general principles are applied in analyzing problems in both."

To some extent they are. But here we run into the problems I am seeing with what you are saying. YOu seem to be talking ideally. In real life, ideally doenst exist. I know many people who are perfectly intelligent and can think well, except dont about certain subjects, whether religion or something else. In real life, you get 2 or more sides to an argument, both saying different htings, with impressive amounts of data and logical structures. Yet they dont agree. At least in science, you can experiment etc. But then most people will believe what they are told as long as it is backed up scientifically, the problem coimes with precisely those questions requiring critical thinking.


"But that is assuming that there are adequate measures of creative thought, and that the school system is not employing them. Since measures of creative thought are rather hard to set up until after one has already passed their elementary school years, I do not believe that the school system can do much better that its current performance in this aspect, unless students are given more individual attention from well qualified instructors."

I agree, there arent adequate measures of creativity. But the problem again comes with exactly what has creativity got to do with the question in hand. I didnt quite understand your answer to my previous question on this point.

"Yes, but the existence of a few people who do posses these abilities is not necessarily indicative of a general trend. I claim that those individuals who you met are not indicative of general behavior, since it is much easier to "pass through" elementary and high schools as opposed to collegiate educational institutions. "

To some extent that is correct. I would assert that there are enough exceptions though, to make drawing an arbitrary line any further up the educational scale than leaving high school as unjust and problematic. The thing is, I am reminded of the old school system we used to have here. Grammer schools for intelligent intellectuals, technical schools for a larger percentage of the rest, and the remainder getting apprenticeships or suchlike. It seems to me taht what you are proposing doesnt take enough account of individuality. For example, my grandfather left school at 16 and joined the police, becoming Chief constable around 30 years later. yet there will have been others who left school at 16, and joined some sort of trade etc, but didnt do so well, or fell backwards.

"Thus, completion of elementary and high school in the US often does not guarantee more than "mastery" of elementary school concepts."

Mmmm, and are you sure that elementary shcool concepts are definitely useful in real life? YOu see, at teh moment it looks more like the school systme isnt as good as it aught to be. So whilst raising some sort of bar at degree level sounds OK, what about those who might have gone to university, but didnt due to poor teaching?

"No, it is not necessary for some topics, however, I feel that society would be bettered if this level of education was their standard rather than a high school education, which is the current norm in the US."

I would put it slightly differently, namely that it would be better for scoeity in general if all those capable of and desirous of doing a university degree etc, could do so. And everyone else is educated as best as possible before they leave school, in a manner which takes account of their individuality yet prepares them socially as well.

"Yes, but skills for a job and skills to succeed in life are not usually one in the same. For example, I doubt being a stock person at a department store teaches any usefull life skills other than "hernias can happen to anyone"."

Emotional inteligence comes into play here. As does ambition, which is not related to intelligence. I wonder what basic jobs you have done? I have had many, and some of them taught me better time management, and organisation, and others have just bored me stupid, due to being too repetitive. But outside the job, you still have to live, pay bills, drive your car, buy stuff. I see part of the problem as being that many jobs dont challenge people intellectually as much as they could. and some people dont want to be challenged that much.

"That is essentially the best one can do, since educators currently can not enter the minds of their students and force them to apply concepts if the students are not so inclined."

Indeed, and that is part of the problem. But no reasonable solution is really possible. Except that the same applies even after one has done a degree and PhD.

"Yes, but if the elementary and high school systems were better, then the current level of education most US citizens receive (up to high school) would supply them with the necessary skills. However, "popular culture" tends to indicate otherwise, thus I suggested the Bachelor's degree."

In one way I would agree, but I dont see it helping much to adjust it upwards. I am still a little in the dark as to what you mean, is the aim here to justify raising voting requirements to having a degree? And popular culture isnt necessarily connected to intelligence either. I know various people who partake of popular culture, yet are as intelligent as me. There is likely some correlation between popular culture and clear thinking ability, but yet, I dont see it as clear cut as that.

Perhaps a final point will make you feel easier about it all, and thats that people who vote are likely fairly interested and invovled in what is happening, and thus better informed in some ways than the non voters. So at least you have people voting who want to.

 

"... current formal education encourages minimal free thought, since such thought le

No i think this is not true, because free thought seems to be mostly based on personality. Some people think free, some don't and not any educational system will ever change that.

There is a possibility to increase the level of critical thinking, but this seems to be only fruitful if it is applied to an objective, or semi-objective topic such as science. it seems hardly possible to attribute critical thinking to opinionated topics such as politics or religion. Just have a look at the WEP forum.

 

dapthar

Your post, while containing some valid points

excellent!
so do you think your imbecility will lessen with a phd?